Are dissenting Catholic views based on reason or emotion?

[Thoughtful]

Are dissenting Catholic views based on reason or emotion?

Just to clarify, this is in relation to those people who call themselves Catholic but generally disagree with some form of Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma. How do they defend their position…with reason or emotion?

 

[Eddy]

Are dissenting Catholic views based on reason or emotion?

Just to clarify, this is in relation to those people who call themselves Catholic but generally disagree with some form of Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma. How do they defend their position…with reason or emotion?

A bit slow to get going. You should have used ‘liberal’ in the title! . I was going to copy my response from the other thread first - but it’s disappeared - so let’s begin again…

Firstly, being open, I’m not yet Catholic (discerning which direction to go in). But in terms of the place of reason and emotion, I don’t think it’s either/ or.

For me the foundation of my faith, and the foundation for my decisions and my stance on issues has to do with my relationship with Jesus. That relationship with Jesus is based on the fact that he existed. But that’s not the end of it. I love Him, therefore my response isn’t just reasonable, it’s also emotional.

In terms of my decision making, then, emotions play a large part, as does reason, as does communal discernment. I am very involved in Ignatian spiritual direction. Ignatius gives the following introduction to discernment:

‘Rules by which to perceive and understand to some extent the various movements produced by the soul: The good that they may be accepted, and the bad that they may be rejected’.

Of course it’s rare to take a stance on a particular only after going through a set of processes - this is faith, not science. But these are the things that would tend to influence me in terms of my theological stance:

Scripture. I read it, I read commentaries from a range of sources, I attempt to read the Greek (stress attempt!).

History and theology. I read writers from a range of backgrounds - I’m in an ecumenical theology book group which has done wonders for broadening my perspective.

Prayer. I tend to sit with issues before God - ask God to speak and to guide me.

Experience. I try to listen to the world, and the people I meet, because I believe Jesus is there speaking. So, for example, my thinking on issues of poverty has been hugely influenced by working with poor people.

Sitting with my relationship with Jesus. I try to spend as much time with Jesus as possible. I try to walk with him through the gospels. I try to learn to see as he saw (what Paul is saying, in Ephesians I think, when he says ‘go on being renewed in the attitude of your mind’). This is the emotional bit, I think. I try my best to look at a situation with Jesus, and try to understand how he would see things now. My relationship, my sense of who he is, and how he acts, and what he cares about is, in the end, probably the most important thing.

Communal Discernment - in two forms. I talk to people with very different views than my own (that’s why I’m here!), and with friends over dinner. And secondly I have an excellent spiritual director who will tell me when I’m away with the fairies or deliberately resisting God. In other words, testing my own decision to see if it’s in keeping with who God is.

 

[Church_Militant]

Are dissenting Catholic views based on reason or emotion?

Just to clarify, this is in relation to those people who call themselves Catholic but generally disagree with some form of Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma. How do they defend their position…with reason or emotion?

I’m not sure that that can be answered concisely because it will vary from person to person.

Some may dissent on an emotional basis, but I suspect that many more do so on a moral basis, preferring the way they currently wish to live to the moral direction of the church.

 

[Pug]

Maybe for some people it is based on underlying assumptions. If you are raised to refuse to believe anything that you perceive as unreasonable, that paradigm could be the controling one when you think about a moral issue. In other words, thinking how some Catholics think is only there as a veneer for some.

I’m not trying to put anyone down by this. I personally had a layer of Catholic thought placed over the base of other thought, and it took years to turn it into a mostly cohesive mass. Still war erupts in my mind now and then.

 

[Thoughtful]

A bit slow to get going. You should have used ‘liberal’ in the title! . I was going to copy my response from the other thread first - but it’s disappeared - so let’s begin again…

Firstly, being open, I’m not yet Catholic (discerning which direction to go in). But in terms of the place of reason and emotion, I don’t think it’s either/ or.

For me the foundation of my faith, and the foundation for my decisions and my stance on issues has to do with my relationship with Jesus. That relationship with Jesus is based on the fact that he existed. But that’s not the end of it. I love Him, therefore my response isn’t just reasonable, it’s also emotional.

In terms of my decision making, then, emotions play a large part, as does reason, as does communal discernment. I am very involved in Ignatian spiritual direction. Ignatius gives the following introduction to discernment:

‘Rules by which to perceive and understand to some extent the various movements produced by the soul: The good that they may be accepted, and the bad that they may be rejected’.

Of course it’s rare to take a stance on a particular only after going through a set of processes - this is faith, not science. But these are the things that would tend to influence me in terms of my theological stance:

Scripture. I read it, I read commentaries from a range of sources, I attempt to read the Greek (stress attempt!).

History and theology. I read writers from a range of backgrounds - I’m in an ecumenical theology book group which has done wonders for broadening my perspective.

Prayer. I tend to sit with issues before God - ask God to speak and to guide me.

Experience. I try to listen to the world, and the people I meet, because I believe Jesus is there speaking. So, for example, my thinking on issues of poverty has been hugely influenced by working with poor people.

Sitting with my relationship with Jesus. I try to spend as much time with Jesus as possible. I try to walk with him through the gospels. I try to learn to see as he saw (what Paul is saying, in Ephesians I think, when he says ‘go on being renewed in the attitude of your mind’). This is the emotional bit, I think. I try my best to look at a situation with Jesus, and try to understand how he would see things now. My relationship, my sense of who he is, and how he acts, and what he cares about is, in the end, probably the most important thing.

Communal Discernment - in two forms. I talk to people with very different views than my own (that’s why I’m here!), and with friends over dinner. And secondly I have an excellent spiritual director who will tell me when I’m away with the fairies or deliberately resisting God. In other words, testing my own decision to see if it’s in keeping with who God is.

Hi Eddy,

I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I have to admit I was a bit overwhelmed with your post

There is a lot of information, so I hope that you don’t mind if I focus on just one or two things for now.

First of all I totally agree that it is not “either/or”. Simply said, I think that “emotions” are what motivate us and “reason” is what convinces us to act.

I’m unfamiliar with Ignatian spiritual direction, so can I suggest maybe starting a thread about that and sharing your experience with it. I would be interested.

Hope you don’t mind that I have a couple questions, are you decerning the Catholic faith as one of many or in particular? and is your spiritual director a Catholic priest?

It sounds like you have made a lot of effort in your search, and I look forward to discussing the different variables that help us to decide how we love and serve Jesus.

Just wondering if I should change the title of this thread in keeping with how the discussion is going? Do you know how to do that?

 

[rwoehmke]

I would say definetly both. Bear in mind though that reaconing is only as good as the validity of the starting premises. Either vway any two people can diverge radically on what they conclude. That’s why having the teaching of the Church is so helpful.

 

[Thoughtful]

I would say definetly both. Bear in mind though that reaconing is only as good as the validity of the starting premises. Either vway any two people can diverge radically on what they conclude. That’s why having the teaching of the Church is so helpful.

Hi rwoehmke!

Hope you don’t mind that I re-quote what I said earlier

First of all I totally agree that it is not “either/or”. Simply said, I think that “emotions” are what motivate us and “reason” is what convinces us to act.

Having said that, the Catholic Church teaches something about, say, abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, female priests. It is clearly written and clearly explained (or maybe not - up for discussion), and someone disagrees with it… do you think that their beliefs are based on logical arguments that prove the Church wrong and therefore their position is the correct one, or are their beliefs based on emotional sentiments which allow them to pick and choose the beliefs of the group they want to be associated with?

 

[Thoughtful]

Bear in mind though that reaconing is only as good as the validity of the starting premises.

Could you give an example?

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think its emotional most of the time.

 

[Thoughtful]

I think its emotional most of the time.

Why?

 

[blessedtoo]

I love this topic!

Having said that, the Catholic Church teaches something about, say, abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, female priests. It is clearly written and clearly explained (or maybe not - up for discussion), and someone disagrees with it…

I think there are big differences between issues like abortion and same sex marriage, AND contraception and female priests. The two former issues are more clearly defended and explained with science and biology and thus lend themselves to debate that does not have to revolve around theology or religion. As Catholics, we understand the issue on contraception based on faith and theology and while science can be used to defend the downside of contraception from a biological standpoint, our culture is completely deaf to hearing this. Clear links have been established between the use of the pill and a myriad of female health problems, not to mention the abortofacient aspect, and yet our culture refuses to acknowledge the damage. Female priests, in my opinion, is a completely emotional argument and not based on reason, Scripture or theology.

do you think that their beliefs are based on logical arguments that prove the Church wrong and therefore their position is the correct one, or are their beliefs based on emotional sentiments which allow them to pick and choose the beliefs of the group they want to be associated with?

There is no logic involved with dissenting from the position on abortion. Life begins at conception. Any argument that denies this is purely emotional and political. The same applies to homosexual marriage. What was unthinkable even 20 years ago, is now legal in 2 states. What is naturally repugnant to the majority of people is now accepted because the homosexual lobby has appealed to people’s misguided sense of “compassion”. Contraception is here to stay in the secular culture, although there is some movement in the holistic community to get away from unnatural methods of preventing pregnancy. Those Catholics who dissent on this issue are rooted deeply in the culture and I believe it’s very difficult for them to transcend their “feelings” on this issue and their fears. You see it on these threads alot. Often, when they understand the full meaning of marriage and procreation, they are more willing to accept Church teaching. Female priests, as I said above, is just ridiculous. I can’t even discuss that one!

 

[Eddy]

First of all I totally agree that it is not “either/or”. Simply said, I think that “emotions” are what motivate us and “reason” is what convinces us to act.

I’m not sure that applies to everyone - maybe it depends on your personality, rather than your theological stance? I’m an INFP on Myers Briggs, which means I operate a lot on intuition and perception. However, I have a very strong academic background, so I also am well used to reason. My going over to attempt to comfort a stranger who’s crying has less to do with reason (I can reason out the chance they’ll tell me to get lost) than it has to do with the emotion (compassion).

Hope you don’t mind that I have a couple questions, are you decerning the Catholic faith as one of many or in particular? and is your spiritual director a Catholic priest?

I left the Catholic church 7 years ago. I have been working in a Protestant church since. I am considering returning, because of my belief in Eucharist, but am hesitating because it means it is virtually impossible to continue in my vocation (full time ministry, as a woman, not called to religous orders) and the stance of papal infallibility.

Again and again I hear the argument here that anyone who disagrees with the Catholic church position is guilty of arrogance and placing themselves above God. That is the opposite of my experience. Many times it would be easier, and less painful, to unquestioningly accept the CC’s teaching. Listening to the voice of God, and allowing yourself to be niggled into action by it, has a huge cost - and, for me, has had more to do with an attempt to be faithful to God, than it has to do with making my own life more comfortable.

My spiritual director is a Catholic lay woman. She is great.

Just wondering if I should change the title of this thread in keeping with how the discussion is going? Do you know how to do that?

No idea! Sorry.

 

[mlchance]

I just wanted to take a moment to gently point out the irony of the following two sentences:

I am considering returning, because of my belief in Eucharist, but am hesitating because it means it is virtually impossible to continue in my vocation (full time ministry, as a woman, not called to religous orders)…

My spiritual director is a Catholic lay woman. She is great.

“Ministry” does not necessarily equal “ordained.” There are many positions of ministry, full-time or otherwise, open to lay people, both men and women, within the Catholic Church.

Back to the OP: Folks who dissent from Church doctrine often do a good job of at least appearing reasonable, but every one of this ultimately operating on false premises. It is impossible for a person with a properly formed conscience to dissent from Church doctrine. The tricky part is, of course, properly forming one’s conscience.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Eddy]

I just wanted to take a moment to gently point out the irony of the following two sentences:

“Ministry” does not necessarily equal “ordained.” There are many positions of ministry, full-time or otherwise, open to lay people, both men and women, within the Catholic Church.
.

No irony. I said ‘virtually impossible’ - my own director is one of only two lay people I know employed full time in pastoral work in the CC. And I know of several others who have attempted to do lay work, but have had to give up, due to their employer’s refusal to make pension contributions, or pay a salary which allows for the purchase of a house. I’m based in the UK - the situation is very different here than in the US.

 

[mlchance]

No irony. I said ‘virtually impossible’ - my own director is one of only two lay people I know employed full time in pastoral work in the CC. And I know of several others who have attempted to do lay work, but have had to give up, due to their employer’s refusal to make pension contributions, or pay a salary which allows for the purchase of a house. I’m based in the UK - the situation is very different here than in the US.

If one’s call to ministry by God is authentic, piddling little details like pension contributions and having a house ought to be rather beside the point.

But that’s beside the point, and getting off-topic, so I’ll bow out of this part of the discussion by making two important notes:

1. If your call to a full-time ministry is authentic, God will provide for you what you need, but not necessarily what you want.
2. Rejoin the Church. Not doing so is too much like being homeless.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are dissenting Catholic views based on reason or emotion?

Just to clarify, this is in relation to those people who call themselves Catholic but generally disagree with some form of Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma. How do they defend their position…with reason or emotion?

You’ve forgotten that our soul includes intellect, emotion and will.

It’s all about authority and submission.

They can attempt to rationalize and justify themselves all they want using either reason or emotion, but it comes down to the will.

Choosing to submit or dissent is an act of the will.

 

[rwoehmke]

Hi rwoehmke!

Hope you don’t mind that I re-quote what I said earlier

First of all I totally agree that it is not “either/or”. Simply said, I think that “emotions” are what motivate us and “reason” is what convinces us to act.

Having said that, the Catholic Church teaches something about, say, abortion, same-sex marriage, contraception, female priests. It is clearly written and clearly explained (or maybe not - up for discussion), and someone disagrees with it… do you think that their beliefs are based on logical arguments that prove the Church wrong and therefore their position is the correct one, or are their beliefs based on emotional sentiments which allow them to pick and choose the beliefs of the group they want to be associated with?

I have no doubt that the first impulse is probably emotional, but then when reasoning starts to kick in the starting point for the process can vary all over the place. Many reasoning processes used to support Church teachings start from some already accepted(by the Church) starting point. After all the role of the theologian has often been to find, using reason, explanations of and support for particular teachings. If some aspect of the teaching is not acceptable, others will start the reasoning process from a different initial point. Proving things from reason always presupposes a starting point that all accept.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Dissenting ‘Catholic’ views are a product of ignorance of one or more principles leading up to the concept the person is dissenting against. Once the concept is fully understood, the dissent generally disappears. Whether ignorance is emotional or reasoned is hard to say. I’ve always looked at it as a flaw in formation. A person has jumped to some conclusion or another without tracing the theology or the history back to it’s origin. When something seems wrong in the Church, before forming a permanent destructive opinion about it, one should do the necessary research to find where the misunderstanding occurred, study and discern the basis of the concept, and the underlying reasons why the Church sees it the way she does. The more I think about it, the dissent is most likely emotional, to get to the answer of your question, since reason, and discernment will most often lead to understanding, thereby diffusing the dissent, and calming the once negative emotional response.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Are dissenting Catholic views based on reason or emotion?

Just to clarify, this is in relation to those people who call themselves Catholic but generally disagree with some form of Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma. How do they defend their position…with reason or emotion?

That’s like asking whether people in the USA are intelligent or stupid - it’s impossible to generalise Some people are intelligent about some things, and stupid in other respects - some are intelligent overall, or stupid overall.​

If OTOH the question is asked,“Are there good reasons for disagreeing with those things ?”; certainly there can be. There can also be bad reasons to disagree: just as there can good and bad reasons for any POV.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with emotion - people are not robots (& thank goodness for that). Emotion is a bad thing for one’s beliefs when it stops them being intelligently held - not when it does not get in the way of intelligence. There’s nothing to be said for being too purely intellectual either - it’s as much a mistake as being too emotional: human beings are meant to be neither alone, but both together. That’s why “the heart has its reasons”, as truly as the intellect does. Which is why a purely intellectual apologetic is incomplete - it appeals to only one side of human nature. ##

 

[jmcrae]

Are dissenting Catholic views based on reason or emotion?

Just to clarify, this is in relation to those people who call themselves Catholic but generally disagree with some form of Catholic teaching, doctrine, or dogma. How do they defend their position…with reason or emotion?

There’s a saying out there, and I don’t remember where it comes from, that “heresy begins between the legs.” Obviously, that’s an over-simplification, but it is true that a lot of people change their beliefs based on what they want, whether it is to divorce and remarry, or to have a homosexual relationship, or to marry outside the faith, etc.

In addition to that, there is also the very strange presumption of total innocence of the ones we love. If someone we love commits a sin, we would rather think that the action they did isn’t sinful than admit that someone we love is capable of sin. After all, if we love the person, then God must love the person, too, since God has more love than we do, but God doesn’t love sinners, (actually, He does - not everyone He loves will make it to Heaven, though) therefore our loved one didn’t commit a sin.

I remember being in a heated discussion with a relative, and she said, “Would you still think homosexuality was a sin if your brother were a homosexual? Could you possibly think that your brother was a sinner?” She was perfectly serious.

My brother is about as straight as they come, by the way. It was just a hypothetical example. Still, I have no trouble thinking he’s a sinner when he sins.

But this is the line of reasoning that is used by a huge segment of the population, and it’s really difficult to argue with it, because it is a very emotional point of view - if I had said, “yes, of course I would think he was a sinner,” she would have been very upset, I think - so I changed the subject, because I wasn’t up to getting emotionally dumped on.