Awful RCIA class -- what's my moral obligation?

[fdesales]

You are starting to stray from what I originally wrote. The question was whether or not the deacon was correct in teaching thus: missing Mass is a venial sin and sometimes a mortal sin. It is not I confusing the issue, but you straying off what I wrote.

I am still waiting for you to prove that missing Mass is always a mortal sin. YOU are introducing the terms “objective” and “subjective”. You claim he was incorrect because missing Mass is “objectively a mortal sin”.

Have you proven yet that ANY act is ALWAYS a mortal sin??? No.

Until you prove otherwise, you are incorrect, sir. There is no act that is ALWAYS a mortal sin. Objectively or subjectively.

That was not the question.

I’m afraid it was the question…

The concern is whether missing Mass is always a mortal sin. That is the EFFECT. We know missing Mass is objectively evil. But being evil does NOT make it a mortal sin. This is a discussion, then, on the effect - mortal or venial.
"fdesales:

Contraception is “serious” always. “Inherently”. “Objectively”. But this does not follow that it is “mortal sin objectively”.

You just contradicted yourself. I think the last word you meant was “subjectively”.

You are focusing on the wrong word. It should be upon MORTAL…

HOW can the act of contraception be a mortal sin, objectively, subjectively, whatever, WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ON THE OTHER TWO FACTS???

Being “mortal” depends on three, ALL THREE being present. Thus, contraception and “mortal” cannot be linked without discussion of ALL THREE!!!

I think you are confusing the “serious” with “mortal”. An act is objectively SERIOUS, it doesn’t depend on anything we do (thus, objective). This act fulfills the first requirement of a mortal sin, always. But you are linking mortal with the act alone, which is a misunderstanding of what makes it mortal in the first place…

You seem unable to separate out what is objectively a mortal sin from what is subjectively.

You seem unable to point to any sort of evidence that the Catholic Church taught that an act is “objectively” a mortal sin…

I don’t teach that. And you do not read with distinction, it would seem.

By stating that missing Mass is a mortal sin, objectively or not, you have in effect said that a person destroys their relationship with God… A teacher of the faith should be more aware of what they teach has implications and can lead to particular conclusions… By making your confusing statements about “objectively” and “subjectively” and linking them to mortal sin, you have not clarified anything, merely confused.

Actually, it is my position that the lying must stop. And if the deacon actually taught that missing Mass is a venial sin, and sometimes it might be a mortal sin, he is either lying, or at best has a very poor understanding of moral theology.

You have not proven in any way yet your assertions.

All too many of them hear only what they want to hear; they want to think they are good people when they are in clear violation of basic Commandments. And teaching like the deacon teaches is part of what is sustaining them.

False conclusion. Because people want to hear what they want to hear, it doesn’t follow that the deacon was in error or willingly taught error…

Knock off the ad hominem bit.

Do you know what that term means? By asking if you were infallible because of your “credentials”, how is that a personal attack??? Your attempt to give me your extensive credentials is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Your apparent expertise based upon your “many years” of experience in the field of moral teachings is supposed to quell my very simple question - does missing Mass = a mortal sin in every situation? HOW DARE I question your vast knowledge - that is the statement you are making.

Learn the terms. Ad hominem is a personal attack meant to sway an argument. Personally attacking you is a logical fallacy (you smell bad, so your argument must be wrong). Closer inspection will reveal that I am not presenting a logical fallacy, it is you with your appeal to authority…

OK, you cannot read with distinction… You are unable to get the distinctions between objective and subjective.

I understand the difference, but they are merely smoke screens and mirrors improperly applied to mortal sin. The distinctions are useless in the discussion of whether an ACT, regardless of the other two factors, is mortal or not. You incorrectly attach “objective” and “mortal sin” together when discussing an act - missing Mass.

I suggest if you want to continue this conversation, you re-evaluate how an act, missing Mass, can objectively be a mortal sin WITHOUT consideration of two other factors. Whether an act is mortal or not depends on THREE factors, not just one. If you have some sort of citations from a source we can agree on is authoritative, that would be helpful. Until then, you are just asserting your opinions - which are not part of Catholic teaching.

Regards

 

[otjm]

I am still waiting for you to prove that missing Mass is always a mortal sin. YOU are introducing the terms “objective” and “subjective”. You claim he was incorrect because missing Mass is “objectively a mortal sin”.

Have you proven yet that ANY act is ALWAYS a mortal sin??? No.

Until you prove otherwise, you are incorrect, sir. There is no act that is ALWAYS a mortal sin. Objectively or subjectively.

I’m afraid it was the question…

The concern is whether missing Mass is always a mortal sin. That is the EFFECT. We know missing Mass is objectively evil. But being evil does NOT make it a mortal sin. This is a discussion, then, on the effect - mortal or venial.

You are focusing on the wrong word. It should be upon MORTAL…

HOW can the act of contraception be a mortal sin, objectively, subjectively, whatever, WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION ON THE OTHER TWO FACTS???

Being “mortal” depends on three, ALL THREE being present. Thus, contraception and “mortal” cannot be linked without discussion of ALL THREE!!!

I think you are confusing the “serious” with “mortal”. An act is objectively SERIOUS, it doesn’t depend on anything we do (thus, objective). This act fulfills the first requirement of a mortal sin, always. But you are linking mortal with the act alone, which is a misunderstanding of what makes it mortal in the first place…

You seem unable to point to any sort of evidence that the Catholic Church taught that an act is “objectively” a mortal sin…

By stating that missing Mass is a mortal sin, objectively or not, you have in effect said that a person destroys their relationship with God… A teacher of the faith should be more aware of what they teach has implications and can lead to particular conclusions… By making your confusing statements about “objectively” and “subjectively” and linking them to mortal sin, you have not clarified anything, merely confused.

You have not proven in any way yet your assertions.

False conclusion. Because people want to hear what they want to hear, it doesn’t follow that the deacon was in error or willingly taught error…

Do you know what that term means? By asking if you were infallible because of your “credentials”, how is that a personal attack??? Your attempt to give me your extensive credentials is the fallacy of an appeal to authority. Your apparent expertise based upon your “many years” of experience in the field of moral teachings is supposed to quell my very simple question - does missing Mass = a mortal sin in every situation? HOW DARE I question your vast knowledge - that is the statement you are making.

Learn the terms. Ad hominem is a personal attack meant to sway an argument. Personally attacking you is a logical fallacy (you smell bad, so your argument must be wrong). Closer inspection will reveal that I am not presenting a logical fallacy, it is you with your appeal to authority…

I understand the difference, but they are merely smoke screens and mirrors improperly applied to mortal sin. The distinctions are useless in the discussion of whether an ACT, regardless of the other two factors, is mortal or not. You incorrectly attach “objective” and “mortal sin” together when discussing an act - missing Mass.

I suggest if you want to continue this conversation, you re-evaluate how an act, missing Mass, can objectively be a mortal sin WITHOUT consideration of two other factors. Whether an act is mortal or not depends on THREE factors, not just one. If you have some sort of citations from a source we can agree on is authoritative, that would be helpful. Until then, you are just asserting your opinions - which are not part of Catholic teaching.

Regards

I have tried with patience to explain it to you, but you obviously cannot follow the explanation. If you want to really understand moral theology, then you need to study something beyond the Catechism as it most definitely is not intended as a full compendium of moral issues.

The deacon implied that missing Mass was not a serious issue in and of itself (assuming he was quoted correctly and said nothing further). We don’t have the full conversation as it took place in the RCIA class, so we can only go with what was conveyed. I responded about the deacon; you have failed to have an understanding of what I said and have gone off on a tangent.

I am not unable to meet your questions; I am simply not interested in repeating myself to someone who cannot read what I actually say, and understand it. It is obvious you do not understand what “objective” and “subjective” mean in terms of moral issues; I have tried to point them out and you either gloss over it in your eagerness to challenge me, or you simply are not capable of distinguishing between the two. In any event, futher explanation seems worthless.

Your knowledge of moral theology appears to be on the level of a high school understanding. I do not suggest this is a fault; simply an observation. If you want to slow down and re-read what I have written, you will find that the answers to your questions in your last post are answered in a way you should be able to understand.

 

[fdesales]

I have tried with patience to explain it to you, but you obviously cannot follow the explanation. If you want to really understand moral theology, then you need to study something beyond the Catechism as it most definitely is not intended as a full compendium of moral issues.

HOW ARE YOU GOING TO EXPLAIN TO “REGULAR” CATHOLICS ABOUT SIN if you can’t even explain it to me, who has “some” experience in teaching others Catholicism???

No, you have tried to cajole and call me names as a means of just accepting your off-the-cuff explanations based on YOUR authority, never mind they are senseless and inaccurate. Must I provide quotes from your most recent rant???

IF you were actually correct and CARED about me learning something, you would have cited ANYTHING, as I asked for in each of my posts! Nothing personal, but I don’t know you from Adam, why should I trust you at your word to overturn the Catechism’s DEFINITION of mortal sin??? No theology texts, encylicals on morality, no spiritual guidebooks, no saintly biographies, Church Fathers, Biblical quotes, NOTHING… Just the “word according to otjm”. EVEN NOW, you refer to some ambiguous text, but don’t actually cite anything… Do you even HAVE any texts??? You couldn’t even look on your bookshelf to give me a title??? THAT is being a good teacher and defender of your point??? Just telling me “you need to read more”???

I fear one of three things…

1…Either you are so proud in your self-knowledge that you consider yourself more authoritative than professional theologians or saints (so you don’t NEED to cite anyone but yourself…) I have in good faith asked for sources, but I just get your condescending garbage…

2…OR you are not much of a teacher. A good communicator will blame THEMSELVES if someone doesn’t understand something. An effective teacher is EXPECTED to be able to explain objects with clarity so others are able to understand. When a “student” doesn’t get it, they will make the effort to explain things. I fear for the students in YOUR RCIA class, if THIS is how you “try” to teach them.

“Just take my word for it, I am an EXPERT!!!”

I am quite knowledgeable about the faith, but you can’t get me to “understand” such a “simple thing”???

3…OR you realize you are wrong and to save face, blame it on me and change the argument around a bit. “Yea, the other guy is an idiot, he can’t understand me…” You have the GALL to accuse me of Ad hominem and THEN turn around and call ME names??? “I must be right because my interlocutor cannot read or understand anything”…

Oh boy…

The deacon implied that missing Mass was not a serious issue in and of itself (assuming he was quoted correctly and said nothing further). We don’t have the full conversation as it took place in the RCIA class, so we can only go with what was conveyed. I responded about the deacon; you have failed to have an understanding of what I said and have gone off on a tangent.

Whatever. The original poster was upset because the deacon was wrong when he stated that missing the Mass was a venial sin and sometimes a mortal sin. I stated technically, this is correct.

NOT A WORD you have typed has changed that. NOTHING. You didn’t like the emphasis. I don’t either. However, I tried to defend the deacon’s LITERAL teaching as correct. It is NOT ALWAYS a mortal sin to miss Mass.

THERE IS OBVIOUS PASTORAL PROBLEMS WITH THAT. But you don’t seem to care about scandalizing others into thinking they are going to hell because they missed Mass…

Thus, I have become zealous, not just to be right, but to show you the problem with teaching young infant Christians such dribble.

Missing Mass cannot possibly be “an objective mortal sin”. YOU tell me otherwise - and use your “authority” as the source of this teaching??? And once you decided to make this gaffe (objective mortal sin - no such thing), I tried to figure out where you were confused at. Seriously, YOU ARE SCANDALIZING OTHERS with that attitude, as I have pointed out earlier. Unfortunately, you still hold to your error, not understanding that NOTHING can be an “objective mortal sin”. Even inherently evil acts are not always mortal. this is a matter of definitions, which you have chosen to ignore…

I am not unable to meet your questions;

I understand the difference between objective and subjective. Objective means something is always “whatever”, regardless of outside circumstances. Thus, in your example, Missing Mass is objectively mortal sin = it is ALWAYS a mortal sin, regardless of outside circumstances - clearly wrong.

With the CHURCH’S definition of mortal sin, how can missing Mass be “objectively mortal sin”, when there ARE outside circumstances that MUST be considered?

Oh, forget about the Catechism, just listen to me…

Your discussion on “objective” and “subjective” don’t even BELONG in this conversation because there is no such thing as “objective” mortal sin. BY ITS VERY DEFINITION, mortal sin REQUIRES that OUTSIDE circumstances be considered.

Again, I stand behind my contention that missing Mass is NOT objectively a mortal sin. If you can prove your point besides merely just stating it as if you were the Magesterium, I’d be happy to hear it…

Regards

 

[lufty]

I just entered the Church this year after having gone through a pretty bad RCIA program. Luckily, I’d read enough at the time and I’ve read enough since to sort out the errors, but with the next class about to start in a month or so, I’m curious about what my moral obligation is to try to correct some of the errors. Here are some examples of things that we were “taught”:

Almost no one ever commits a mortal sin.
The ordination of women was not only possible, but probable in the next 50 or so years.
The presence of Jesus in the Eucharist can be understood to be similar to the way in which God is present everywhere.

I am attending RCIA on a 1-on-1 basis. There is no “class” to speak of, only my personal path with Christ. My mentor let me know any RCIA “class” may prove problematic as no one can “teach” someone about their relationship with Christ, it’s an individual experience and observance.
Anyone having difficulty in an RCIA “class” may want to explore the possibility of a 1-on-1 RCIA experience. If that means you may need to talk to someone at another parish, feel free to explore. For me, having a 1-on-1 experience, and exploring as many Churches as possible, is really working for me, and giving me more opportunities to understand the nature of the Catholic Church, and my path with Christ.

Hope this helps anyone out there!

God bless!

 

[fdesales]

I am attending RCIA on a 1-on-1 basis. There is no “class” to speak of, only my personal path with Christ. My mentor let me know any RCIA “class” may prove problematic as no one can “teach” someone about their relationship with Christ, it’s an individual experience and observance.
Anyone having difficulty in an RCIA “class” may want to explore the possibility of a 1-on-1 RCIA experience. If that means you may need to talk to someone at another parish, feel free to explore. For me, having a 1-on-1 experience, and exploring as many Churches as possible, is really working for me, and giving me more opportunities to understand the nature of the Catholic Church, and my path with Christ.

Hope this helps anyone out there!

God bless!

The “one-on-one” process is not the prefered means of entering the Church. That is why the old Rite was re-implemented - because the “one-on-one” was the pre-Vatican 2 way of entering into the Church fully. Now, it is more a “stop-gap” for those who fell through the cracks, but does not need to wait until next year.

The problem with the “one-on-one” is that you will have a much more difficult time experiencing the Church as a community. Being Catholic is about being Community, being part of a Body. “Me and Jesus” is foreign thought to Catholicism.

You certainly can learn much of the faith through one-on-one. In this situation, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you spend that much more time with a sponsor, and if possible, in some other small group that does apostolic work or volunteerism. This will help make up what you will lose by not sharing your experiences of God and hearing about others in a group environment that is “ordinary RCIA”.

Well to the fullness of the Faith

Regards

 

[lufty]

The “one-on-one” process is not the prefered means of entering the Church. That is why the old Rite was re-implemented - because the “one-on-one” was the pre-Vatican 2 way of entering into the Church fully. Now, it is more a “stop-gap” for those who fell through the cracks, but does not need to wait until next year.

The problem with the “one-on-one” is that you will have a much more difficult time experiencing the Church as a community. Being Catholic is about being Community, being part of a Body. “Me and Jesus” is foreign thought to Catholicism.

You certainly can learn much of the faith through one-on-one. In this situation, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you spend that much more time with a sponsor, and if possible, in some other small group that does apostolic work or volunteerism. This will help make up what you will lose by not sharing your experiences of God and hearing about others in a group environment that is “ordinary RCIA”.

Well to the fullness of the Faith

Regards

A group or “class” environment is not possible. All RCIA classes here begin in September, and I’m unwilling to wait a year to begin exploring Christianity with the Catholic Church. Thanks for your thoughts though.

 

[fdesales]

A group or “class” environment is not possible. All RCIA classes here begin in September, and I’m unwilling to wait a year to begin exploring Christianity with the Catholic Church. Thanks for your thoughts though.

Good luck and God bless.

If you are able to spend time with a sponsor/Godparent, that would be helpful…

Regards

 

[sablouwho]

The problem with the “one-on-one” is that you will have a much more difficult time experiencing the Church as a community. Being Catholic is about being Community, being part of a Body. “Me and Jesus” is foreign thought to Catholicism.

(I’m currently a candidate). I have heard much fuss made about experiencing the community in the CC.

However, my experience so far is that while the importance of community gets talked about a lot, the actual experience in church is that is seems very anonymous.

 

[otjm]

(I’m currently a candidate). I have heard much fuss made about experiencing the community in the CC.

However, my experience so far is that while the importance of community gets talked about a lot, the actual experience in church is that is seems very anonymous.

Some of that depends on the parish; some on the pastor (or other priests if nore than one is available in the parish); some of that is dependent on those who teach RCIA, and some of that is dependent on the individual joining.

 

[sablouwho]

Some of that depends on the parish; some on the pastor (or other priests if nore than one is available in the parish); some of that is dependent on those who teach RCIA, and some of that is dependent on the individual joining.

I can certainly see how these variables would affect things. I’ve tried RCIA at more than one parish, and have visited a handful of other parishes too. (I’m still searching for one that I like.) Unfortunately my personal experiences, thus far, that in general, community in the CC is talked about a lot, but in practice, it is very hard to come by. I very much WANT community and will keep trying, but it sure is frustrating. (It seemed easier to make community when I was in Protestant churches, though it was still a challenge there too.)

I’ve finally found a solid, meaty RCIA program where I can actually learn. (This is not the one I’m in at the parish–though for the moment I am still in that one too), and while this new RCIA class is a rather small group, I am hoping that it will set me on the right road in terms of forming community. Had it not been for this specific RCIA class that I just found, I would probably rather have be doing 1 on 1 with a knowledgeable priest because the teaching in the two RCIA programs I’ve been in thus far has been rather mediocre. Thus, while I ideally would like community AND solid teaching, if I had to make a choice in the RCIA process, I would choose solid teaching, as I don’t want to go through the rites without knowing anything of substance (and unfortunately that is exactly the situation in the two parish RCIA classes that I’ve already been in.)

For example:

At the parish RCIA program last night (the one I’m still in for the time being, though I will probably drop out soon in favor of the new one even though it means delaying my confirmation), the subject was the sacrament of eucharist. The parish’s monsignor gave the presentation. He talked about mass for a while as opposed to the sacrament itself. He basically gave a homily with “cute” stories. Then said he didn’t want to talk about transubstantiation and how it was different than transignification because he didn’t want to get too into things! What?!

And that is why I really dislike the RCIA class that I’m in. Dismissal is no better, I’m afraid. I’m very thankful to have found this new class. Otherwise, I’d be entering the church with hardly any community to speak of (just a bunch of classmates who don’t really interact much with each other, though they do seem nice enough) and no solid knowledge.

I am VERY thankful I found this new RCIA class.

 

[Scout1441]

I am sorry to hear of your experience in RCIA, but I thank God that you had the gumption to teach yourself through additional reading, etc. For the sake of the future RCIA candidates, report this to your Pastor and perhaps the Bishop of your Diocese. Also, to further become a part of the solution consider teaching RCIA. If you have the time check out Catholic Distance University, (cdu.edu/index.asp). They offer degrees in theology, have on-line seminars, and certificate programs in Catechesis.

 

[fdesales]

I’ve finally found a solid, meaty RCIA program where I can actually learn. (This is not the one I’m in at the parish–though for the moment I am still in that one too), and while this new RCIA class is a rather small group, I am hoping that it will set me on the right road in terms of forming community. Had it not been for this specific RCIA class that I just found, I would probably rather have be doing 1 on 1 with a knowledgeable priest because the teaching in the two RCIA programs I’ve been in thus far has been rather mediocre.

I must admit that it is really difficult to reach out to everyone. We live in a pagan society, and some who come to RCIA know NOTHING about Christianity, while others are quite intelligent and knowledgeable. Thus, it is difficult to form a class that doesn’t bore someone like yourself to tears OR go right over the heads of the noobies…You try to put a bit of everything to attempt to appeal to all groups. Perhaps RCIA should seriously take the manual a bit more seriously and not subject someone like yourself to the entire process. It is not extremely difficult to sit down with someone like yourself for a few days or a week and go through the details, maybe spend some time with a short-term sponsor to learn some of the Catholic “particulars” (like how to genuflect, say the rosary, get to know people, etc.) and then come into the Church FULLY at an ordinary Mass…

This way, RCIA can concentrate on what it was MEANT to serve - the catechumens (unbaptized).

What do you think?

And that is why I really dislike the RCIA class that I’m in. Dismissal is no better, I’m afraid. I’m very thankful to have found this new class. Otherwise, I’d be entering the church with hardly any community to speak of (just a bunch of classmates who don’t really interact much with each other, though they do seem nice enough) and no solid knowledge.

Community. Yes, this is the biggest problem with NOT going through RCIA for someone in your situation, which is why I would at least consider a short term sponsor to introduce you to other people at the local church, various ministries, etc. Get you to feel part of the big picture.

I am always looking to improve things. I notice you mention how the classmates don’t really interact. I notice this and would like to change that, but I have no ideas on that. Any suggestions? To implement this, I may have to go to a full year program…

Thanks,

Fdesales

 

[stp61]

given the lack of priests and nuns and etc it is inevitable that some “lay people” will have to teach… that said…
lay people doesnt mean untrained people, just people who are not priests, nuns, monks, etc. if the local church is permitting the teaching of false doctrine, then there is a PROBLEM!
always talk to the local people first (priest, etc) then go up the chain of command. Bishop, if need be Cardinal…

it is critical for the well being of the church that people know the truth of their faith.
(now , this doesn’t mean trying to put a PhD thesis in front of kindergarteners… teach at an appropriate level, of course)

I, too, see that the call to embrace those who seek to enter the Church is extended to all the faithful, and we have to take it seriously, due to our baptismal call to participate in Christ as priests, prophets and kings (Lumen Gentium). On the other hand, I agree, that there are lay catechists (religious or not) who are lacking in formation. There are as well priests whose formation is long past, and their daily work did not allow them to catch up with recent Church teachings (well the teaching on the Eucharist won’t change, it is solid doctrine and this teaching I do not want to include here, it is beyond discussion … but there are other teachings which are open to theological reflection and are not as irreversible written into stone as many would like to see it for the sake of comfort).

It is the skill of the catechist to present these teachings in a way that is accessible to those who listen, as Origen already said: we need to prepare the food in a way so that all can eat in the way their body supports and demands it.

Therefore, it is not time to complain but as neophytes and those baptized as infants need to get going, take their responsibilities serious and learn about their faith from the source, which is Scripture and Tradition. There are many excellent courses out there you can take online, or even enroll in a Catholic University Distant Learning Program or ask your diocese. Stop complaining - do something. Learn the doctrine, learn how to become a good catechist and step up to the plate. Not the priest or the nun is the Church, but we all are a priestly people.

 

[lufty]

Good luck and God bless.

If you are able to spend time with a sponsor/Godparent, that would be helpful…

Regards

I have requested a sponsor at each parish I have visited. None are available, nor are apparently a part of RCIA in this city.

 

[stp61]

I think, you are correct in stating that the different levels of Christian life are a challenge to any catechists in the RCIA process and that the Rite itself has solutions for the situations you described.

On the other hand, I would not say that becoming Catholic is a cognitive process focusing on doctrine and mechanisms like genuflecting and Rosary prayer – it is about conversion of the inner human being towards God. Some one can be very knowledgeable in the Faith, but is resisting conversion, even an initial conversion, something which cannot be seen at the outside. The time in the catechumenate helps there a lot to sit down with God and sort out obstacles. Those who are baptized are to sit down with them, not just a priest teaching doctrine, but lay people in the community, those who sin in the same way by resisting God’s gracious Love and walk with the catechumenate into the Light of Faith. Lent is a wonderful time to walk this walk together, the Elect towards their Baptism in the Lord, the Baptized towards the renewal of their baptismal promises.

 

[sablouwho]

I have requested a sponsor at each parish I have visited. None are available, nor are apparently a part of RCIA in this city.

I notice that you are in CA. I am too–I am in the LA Archdiocese. If you are in this area I can direct you to the RCIA program that I am in, if you like. It seems that you keep hitting brick walls with RCIA. Something just sounds “off”.