2
2nd_Adam
Guest
How about the term Cafeteria Catholic too?
- Status
P
Priscilla_Ann
Guest
Are you serious?
H
heathernoel
Guest
Yes, I’m serious.
To suppose that the MAJORITY of Catholics (good standing Catholics who are not “Cafeteria Catholics”) use contraception is erroneous. Are there people that call themselves Catholics that use it as a means to abort/prevent pregnancies? Yes. But as the MAJORITY of practicing Catholics will tell you, those of us that follow the Church do not. To do so is against our beliefs and practices as pro life humanitarians. Those that use it in that manner are not in unity with their church.
To suppose that the MAJORITY of Catholics (good standing Catholics who are not “Cafeteria Catholics”) use contraception is erroneous. Are there people that call themselves Catholics that use it as a means to abort/prevent pregnancies? Yes. But as the MAJORITY of practicing Catholics will tell you, those of us that follow the Church do not. To do so is against our beliefs and practices as pro life humanitarians. Those that use it in that manner are not in unity with their church.
B
Bill_Pick
Guest
You are one nice guy,I have been a Cathloic all my life and you are teaching me how to spill what a guy do you think maybe it was a typo or was In just one dumb Catholic. As smart as you are You never need to change your name from Not to smart it was very becoming to you.Bill:
Chill out.
Oh…and you should learn how to spell. The word is spelled Catholic. The “l” follows the “o”.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Dogma (the infallible, defined teachings of the Church) are evident in one of four ways:
- The explicit teaching of Sacred Scripture.
- The teachings of Ecumenical Councils.
- The consistent teaching of the Episcopacy throughout the ages.
- The solemn, ex cathedra definitions of the Pope.
Other dogma, as I mentioned earlier, are contested. The Church teaches that artificial birth control is morally wrong. But is that teaching a dogma? I don’t know. I don’t know of any Ecumenical Council that has defined this as such, neither do I know of any ex cathedra definitions by any Popes. Considering that artificial contraception is a relatively new thing in our 2000 year history as a Church, I don’t think it’s even possible for there to be any kind of “consistent affirmation by the episcopacy throughout the ages”, so I would tentatively conclude that the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception is not an infallibly defined dogma. However, that does not mean a Catholic may or should dissent simply because it isn’t dogma. We as Catholics are expected to give assent of faith to all the teachings of the Church. In essence, it’s giving the Magisterium the benefit of the doubt. All it means is that the Church could, conceivably be wrong, and that the teaching doesn’t carry with it any charism of infallibility.
Now I’d say that a Catholic who willy-nilly dissents from any (or some) non-infallible teachings of the Church is still a Catholic, howbeit a poor one, one who really ought to examine his conscience as to why and on what grounds he’s dissenting. He’s still a Catholic though, as the teaching from which he’s dissenting isn’t dogma.
Dogma on the other hand defines us, just as not eating meat defines a vegetarian. By definition a vegetarian cannot eat meat otherwise he ceases to be a Vegetarian. Similarly, by definition a Catholic cannot deny dogma otherwise he ceases to be a Catholic.
I’m not in any position to unilaterally decide what is and what isn’t dogma. I don’t hold the priesthood and I’m not a theologian so I always err on the side of caution and defer to the teaching magisterium and the theologians who also defer to the magisterium. But just because I’m in no proper position to judge the dogmatic nature of the Church’s teachings doesn’t mean I’m incapable of recognizing dogma.
As far as one having a list by which one can know if “he can dissent or not”, this comes off as a sort of shady, minimalist position. “I’ll believe only what I have to believe in order to remain a Catholic.” We should by default believe everything the Church teaches including non-infallible, ordinary teaching. It’s only when one has diligently done everything in his power to give assent (study the teaching, its nature, and pray pray pray) but in the end his conscience keeps him from doing so, is a Catholic arguably in a good, moral position.
I’m talking about flat out dissent, not healthy skepticism. “I don’t really understand this. It makes very little sense to me, and I’m honestly quite skeptical of it. I’ll trust that the Magisterium knows what she’s talking about, however” is still an “assent of will and faith”. I like how you put it later on:
They’re good questions, and the same ones I had when I was investigating Catholicism prior to conversion. I admit that I still don’t understand all of the nuances in theology, and I’ve slowly come to understand why theologians have to spend so much time in school!
If you’re very serious about understanding the varying forms Church teaching takes, the various documents that come from the teaching Magisterium, and the level of assent expected of each, may I recommend two very good (short) books:
“Creative Fidelity: Weighing and Interpreting Documents of the Magisterium”
&
“Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church”
both of which are authored by Francis A. Sullivan, S.J.
PS: I miss your old screen name. I found it to be quite humble. I’m sorry so many people hassled your for it
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
I have read surveys that show this is true…that the majority either use or approve of contraception (can’t remember which). If you want, I can see if I can find it.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
i believe the point here is that is what the Church teaches? No.
if one does not obey the Church it is between her and God. the Church is here to teach and uphold the Truth and that is what she does.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
Well now that you mention it that is exactly correct.I think the OP was about the Catholic witch hunt of our dear sister Tweetymom who is Catholic. I was really saddened to watch what was happening to her on this Forum Site. Maybe we can all learn from that experience through this thread.
When I saw that post, to be honest, I was ticked. Particularly when I looked back in the thread and could see nothing that should be all that offensive from the Catholic perspective outside of an honest disagreement.
Tweetymom is what I would call an evangelical, ecumenical Catholic. Although they are a distinct minority, I have met several in real life. And they are all wonderful folks. It was the memory of an evangelical, ecumenical Catholic family that I had as a teenager in high school college that has prevented me from becoming a hard core anti-Catholic when I attended a church that was more negative to Catholics than I am. I posted about this family on another thread a while back. It is a shame that there are not more like this family that I knew on this forum to be honest.
Then I started asking myself “Where does he/she get off anyway suggesting that a fellow Catholic no longer call herself Catholic?” What authority does he or she have other than the free will to privately judge somebody else. If this suggestion were to be made by anybody, shouldn’t it be by a priest or a bishop, not an anonymous poster over the internet? What authority does one anonymous poster over the internet have to tell another anonymous poster over the internet he/she shouldn’t call him/her self Catholic anymore.
Thus I started this thread.
Anyway the responses to my question are all over the place. I hope that what I read was just the private vendetta of one Catholic as opposed to the prevailing sentiment here. I did report the offending post, but I doubt whether my report gets anywhere as the one with the vendetta seems to be a veteran here.
Anyway I am no longer really ticked off like I was yesterday. So that is good.
But this general topic has spawned a number of related questions in my head as I play assorted “what if” scenarios that I hope I can get some answers for.
R
RedBert
Guest
A recent (1989–1992) survey of Catholics from multiple countries (the USA, Austria, Canada, Ecuador, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Peru, Spain and Switzerland), aged 15 to 25 showed that 36.9% accepted the teaching on papal infallibility, 36.9% denied it, and 26.2% said they didn’t know of it. (Source: Report on surveys of the International Marian Research Institute, by Johann G. Roten, S.M.)By the Teachings of the Church. If a catholic says… “I don’t believe this Church’s teaching… or that teaching…, etc.”, was corrected and still holds to his own personal views or beliefs, then he might really is not a Catholic. It is and will come out from his own mouth or actions.
Peace. But Truth must be told.
It is more important…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_i…_infallibility
From 1992 , only 37 % of Catholics accepted Papal infallibility?
are the ones who do not accept accepted Papal infallibility Catholic or not?
R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
There are different senses in which we must identify individuals as belonging to various groups. We are American, mothers, Irish, Baptist, Catholic, and so on. A mother who would murder her child may be rightly said to be no longer a mother…in the sense that she denied in her action the most natural instinct of a mother…but she still had the child, she is in another sense, a mother. One can spit on a flag, the symbol of the country of their birth and show disdain for that nation’s heritage, and in a sense forfeit the right to be identified as American or Irish, but they are still subject to that nation’s laws and remain citizens.
In the sense that a murdering mother remains a mother, or a traitorous citizen is still by name under the authority of his home country, so a Catholic who denies the teachings of his Church is Catholic.
Assuredly it can be a matter of debate as to what consists of “denying the teachings of the Church”. I think Americans who love and honor their country may correctly wish to distance themselves from treason by saying that traitors unAmerican. I think Catholics who submit their beliefs to the judgment of Holy Mother Church with a filial love and trust, are permitted to draw a distinction between themselves and nominal Catholics who would hold to their beliefs if a pope and ecumenical council should declare otherwise. That’s the deal. It isn’t a matter of authority. It is simply that those who love don’t want to be lumped in with those who despise. I get that.
Maybe some who think they love the Church are overly zealous. In my opinion, the Church permits a wider range of views than some folk think. One must take it up on a case by case basis. But for the record, I have no problem with telling someone who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or papal infallibility that they are not Catholic, understood in the limited sense I have tried to present.
In the sense that a murdering mother remains a mother, or a traitorous citizen is still by name under the authority of his home country, so a Catholic who denies the teachings of his Church is Catholic.
Assuredly it can be a matter of debate as to what consists of “denying the teachings of the Church”. I think Americans who love and honor their country may correctly wish to distance themselves from treason by saying that traitors unAmerican. I think Catholics who submit their beliefs to the judgment of Holy Mother Church with a filial love and trust, are permitted to draw a distinction between themselves and nominal Catholics who would hold to their beliefs if a pope and ecumenical council should declare otherwise. That’s the deal. It isn’t a matter of authority. It is simply that those who love don’t want to be lumped in with those who despise. I get that.
Maybe some who think they love the Church are overly zealous. In my opinion, the Church permits a wider range of views than some folk think. One must take it up on a case by case basis. But for the record, I have no problem with telling someone who denies the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, or papal infallibility that they are not Catholic, understood in the limited sense I have tried to present.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
(shortened to fit in length limits)
What if you have done all of that and the point to which I can not give assent is a point of dogma? Wouldn’t I want to know whether that point that is a sticking point is dogma or not.
But this is not that important to me now. This thread topic has sort of spawned an interesting what-if hypothetical in my hyperactive mind that I am sort of interested in.
What I am trying to do is relate my what-if hypothetical to my experience. So I will start by making a confession. And I only do it here because it is a place far removed from where I am at.
I am at a point in my life where I am examining my own faith and assumptions a little more critically. I am also at the point in my life where I would sort of like to understand how Christians who are not-like-me think, live, and believe. Not that I am terribly disgruntled or unsatisfied. Probably more curious and inquisitive than anything else.
Now in this process I have come to find that there are certain parts of the statement of faith of my denomination that I do not personally adhere to and that I am uncomfortable adopting as my own.
Now these certain parts are what I will call distinctives of my denomination, distinctives that would classify us as a Pentecostal as opposed to a generic evangelical denomination.
Now I do not flat out deny these points. The denomination just might be correct and I might be wrong for all I know. And I can find something close to what they believe that I am more comfortable with. It is just…that…I am…not there yet.
And these points are not all that important to me anyway. I am not going to write 95 theses and protest against my church. In fact I will not bring it up to anybody in my church other than my wife. I will submit to my church because I feel this is where God wants me to be, full well knowing this is what they believe. And who knows, since I don’t flat out-and-out deny these points, maybe in time I can be convinced.
Which brings me to my hypothetical here.
What if I were Catholic and the whole thing was happening to me in reverse. I could very easily see it happening.
What if there would be a couple of points of Catholic dogma that are Catholic distinctives that I would be “not there yet”. I would not deny them lacking the smoking gun to prove them false, but I would not affirm them either. Maybe I could find something close I could affirm, but this ain’t horseshoes.
However, knowing me, this would not be enough to make me as a hypothetical Catholic want to leave Catholicism (I would probably be equally skeptical of some parts of Protestant anyway). My strong preference would be to remain Catholic, even to the point of clamming up about this and not letting anybody in my parish know where I was at, knowing full right the church where I believe God would have me has a right to believe what it wants.
So in that hypothetical, should I as a questioning and not totally-there-yet Catholic remain Catholic or leave the Catholic faith for something else.
I imagine if I were to come to these forums in this type of state, I would get some suggestions from very righteous Catholics that I should leave the Catholic faith.
See the post above yours I am responding to. He was pulling that stuff a lot, even after I asked him to stop. Finally I got a new screen name because I got tired of the wisecracks. It was a pain because I had to create a new email address for my new account.PS: I miss your old screen name. I found it to be quite humble. I’m sorry so many people hassled your for it
But I see that he still can’t let it go.
T
thirdn6
Guest
The survey wouldn’t tell us if all 36.9% of those Catholics who denied Papal Infallibility were firm in their beliefs or were fully catechized or whatever…knowing also that the survey was taken from people aged 15-25. It’s also possible that they’re not aware that the doctrines of the Catholic Church must be affirmed by all of Her members.
And so my opinion is still the same, “… if they were corrected, knew the teachings, and remained obstinate in their erratic beliefs then they might not really be Catholics, or else they become separated brethrens.” Please see post #39.
But don’t forget… we are all called to repentance then reconciliation.
Welcome to CAF.
J
jmcrae
Guest
The Catholic faith is so vast and so deep that there is no one on earth who “gets” the whole thing; not even the Pope - and not even that mythological simple peasant woman with her simple faith - in reality, she’s got some questions, too.
That’s what it is, to be Catholic. It’s to accept certain things (different things, for each person, of course), even though you have absolutely no earthly idea how they could possibly be true, and several contrary theories of your own. We’re all taking something on faith, whether it’s the Social Justice doctrines, or the Marian doctrines, or the Four Last Things, or ecclesiology, or transubstantiation, or Humanae Vitae, or Rerum Novarum, or Vatican II, or Trent, or what have you.
As long as you never say, “I refuse to believe this,” but continue to believe that Jesus Christ is guiding His Church without error, even though you know deep in your heart that you have a better idea on one or two points - you’re fine.
A
AmateurPianist
Guest
J
jmcrae
Guest
Then look at it this way. If this were some other organization, it wouldn’t have infallibility - and yet, you would be required to abide by its rules, anyway. Right?
So, think of it as a bonus - if it doesn’t really exist, nothing really changes. You can’t disobey your boss just because he’s not infallible, right? You’d most likely be fired, and protests of “but I thought he was wrong” aren’t going to get you very far, in most places.
If you join a lodge or a golfing club, there are also rules you need to follow, that if you don’t, you will no longer be welcome as a club member. So, it’s really not that big a deal, if the Pope is not really infallible, because you’d still have to obey him anyway, if you joined the Catholic Church.
So, it becomes an academic question (since you’re going to obey him whether he’s infallible or not, right?) And, if it turns out that he really is infallible, then hey - you can’t possibly go wrong. Right?
So, take it on faith, and don’t worry too much about it.
- Status