Can Catholics disagree with the Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter merne9
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
God has given us a free will and choice to do whatever we want in secular matters and matters of faith. There is no disagreement here. We have the freedom to be wrong.

I guess where part of the difference in this thread is that for some “disagreement” is a noun and a final opinion, whereas for me “disagreement” is a verb and a process of discernment. There is a healthy aspect of critically analysing and thinking to come to a personal understanding of what the church teaches.

All are free to just accept the teachings of the church because they are the teachings of the church, but what kind of relationship is that. For many partners, they do just accept there partners at face value and that is good, and other partners struggle to understand their partner and that is a growing aspect of love. I think this is true in our faith. We can blindly accept the teachings of the church because that is what the church teaches… and did not Jesus say himself that it will be easier for children or the poor or something like that find their way into heaven. However, it is equally ok to be engaged in conversation and thinking with the Lord and the Church in trying to understand what the church is teaching…and the involvement of conversion to teaching must carry a degree of disagreement.

The idea of “no questions asked” with regards to what our teaching is disgenuine in the sense that most people have doubts, most people have disagreements unless they are trying to impress others by checking the most bullets on the “best catholic” checklist…doesn’t seem authentic to me. Conversion is a life long process, it involves struggling with ideas, concepts…we are to love the Lord with our whole minds as well as our whole hearts too… Jesus does not want ignorance as a basis for our relationship with him, the Catholic Church is not about blind ignorance, rather, we are not robots…so I continue to argue that it is ok to respectfully and with an open mind and heart to question… not for the purposes of discrediting the church but the opposite to find the terms and framework for one to fully embrace the teachings of the church through thought…be prepared to make mistakes, be prepared to go to the margins in thought but keep the Lord as the centre of your journey.

Trickster
Questioning is a legitimate process of trying understand the teachings of the Church. Nobody has suggested you cannot ask questions.
However, if you question but still fail to understand a particular teaching you must nevertheless believe it. If you do not then that means you do not believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ because if you do believe the Catholic Church is the true Church entrusted with the deposit of faith and given authority to teach then you must also know that all Church teachings have the authority of God behind them and that the Church CANNOT be in error in matters of faith and morals otherwise Christ would have lied.
 
Questioning is a legitimate process of trying understand the teachings of the Church. Nobody has suggested you cannot ask questions.
However, if you question but still fail to understand a particular teaching you must nevertheless believe it. If you do not then that means you do not believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ because if you do believe the Catholic Church is the true Church entrusted with the deposit of faith and given authority to teach then you must also know that all Church teachings have the authority of God behind them and that the Church CANNOT be in error in matters of faith and morals otherwise Christ would have lied.
Yes, I think we are getting closer to each other’s take on this. I would argue that if you question but still don’t understand there is a difference between accepting a teaching based on a trust for the church and actually believing it. I don’t know if there is a heaven or even a hell as I have not experienced either - I have not risen from the dead - but I trust the church in her teaching and can say only that I accept the notion that there is a heaven and hell NOT from a rationale or logical perspective but only from a perspective of trust and faith.

Further a “belief” in heaven or hell is not necessary to my salvation. I don’t want my faith to be motivated by fear (of hell) but rather love of God and Jesus. This means I read the scriptures, try to implement the wisdom of the scriptures and the words of Jesus as well as living and implementing the teachings of the church as best as I can understand them…

This is a bit off the OP question about whether or not we can disagree or not believe what the pope says and I believe we have the freedom and supremacy of conscience to make those decisions and this does not mean that we loose our salvation.

Cheerz

Bruce
 
Catholics are human and they come in different varieties ranging from the ultra conservative to ultra liberal. Everyone has the right to disagree with the Pope because he is human however, they must also respect him at all times. To respect someone, doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything.

Hope this helps,

SG
 
trickster #42
This is a bit off the OP question about whether or not we can disagree or not believe what the pope says and I believe we have the freedom and supremacy of conscience to make those decisions and this does not mean that we loose our salvation.
The conscience of a Catholic is not “supreme” to the extent of disbelieving dogma or doctrine. Without contrition and repentance why should salvation be granted?

“The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC1783).
CCC1792 identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”
 
The conscience of a Catholic is not “supreme” to the extent of disbelieving dogma or doctrine. Without contrition and repentance why should salvation be granted?

“The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.” (CCC1783).
CCC1792 identifies “errors of judgment” precisely: “…assertion of a mistaken autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and Her teaching…”
Abu, “supremacy of conscience” doesn’t mean it is supreme to teaching you are correct; it only refers to the fact that there may be times on this teaching, issue or that teaching and issue that we as individuals have not fully grasped. It would be disgenuine to pretend to beleive or agree with something only to appear as a better Catholic. Disagreeing on a personal basis invites deeper search but it does not mean that we need to work against the teaching, that is a dis-edifying process. Hope that nails it down, because we are pretty much on the same page here.

Trickster
 
So if my conscience tells me abortion is ok, then it supersedes church teaching?

🤷
No, it doesn’t. You are to adhere to conscience, but it is assumed that your conscience is properly and fully informed. You need to spend as much effort on discerning what is right and good according to God’s law as the seriousness of the issue requires. This means learning Church doctrine on the subject. We are required to obey the doctrine once we discover it through our earnest search.

III. To Choose in Accord With Conscience

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:
  • One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
  • the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
  • charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58
IV. Erroneous Judgment

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61
 
In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI made claims about condom use and HIV transmission which The Lancet called an attempt to distort scientific evidence in order to advance Catholic Doctrine. The Vatican responded by revising his statement with another falsehood, which seemed more palatable.

If we look further back in history, we can find more than seven centuries of statements by popes promoting antisemitism, even to the extent of demanding that Jews be forced to live in ghettos, etc…

There are numerous examples of popes being exactly like the rest of us, as imperfect people who don’t always have the facts right, who are influenced by various temporal forces and who are influenced our own prejudices and narrow minds.

Also, the church has changed some of its moral teachings over time. Those who dispute that ignore history, and are parroting back the current line of the church which is rather recently pushed (especially by Benedict).

**So, yes, individual conscience should play a role. Imagine what a dangerous world it would be if any single person were considered to be infallible, and that person’s directives and opinions were blindly followed.
**
Any student of history (whether religious history or secular history) could write a thesis on the errors in thinking, teaching, and actions if various important leaders. Popes are no exception.

A Pope’s opinion should be considered as any other political or religious leader’s opinion should be considered.
You have made a number of unsupported statements here. Can you please cite sources for the information?

As for your statement I changed to bold, I think it would be great! (Assuming that the person were infallible in the area of faith and morals.) In fact, isn’t that what the Kingdom will be? Christ running the world/heaven and all of us complying lovingly to His infallible teachings?

We are not required to agree with our political leaders and most of us regularly disagree. But the Pope is the head of the Church and is our moral and spiritual leader. If we are Catholic we are obliged to follow the doctrines taught by the Pope concerning faith and morals. In these two areas, and only these two areas, he is infallible. They are also human and can and do make mistakes, sin, make poor choices and err in areas outside of faith and morals. It is important to clearly separate these two things.
 
Catholics are human and they come in different varieties ranging from the ultra conservative to ultra liberal. Everyone has the right to disagree with the Pope because he is human however, they must also respect him at all times. To respect someone, doesn’t mean you have to agree with everything.

Hope this helps,

SG
The Pope is human, but he is not the same as the rest of us. He is infallible in two very specific areas: faith and morals. When it comes to these two areas we are obliged to follow the teaching of the Pope. We might not understand fully, but we must still follow. 🙂
 
Wow… Interesting. So anything goes as long as I believe it is right.

Polygamy
Homosexuality
Abortion
Rape
Murder
Genocide

My conscience trumps the church.

News to me.
Not exactly.

You must accept the teachings of the Church if it is in you. As has been mentioned, this does demand a properly formed and informed conscience–that you study what the Church teaches, and why it teaches it.

Let’s consider abortion–the clearest of the possible issues you mention. Why does the Church teach that abortion is always wrong?

Because to kill an innocent is wrong. Murder is wrong–and so killing is allowed only in defense of your own life, or to protect another, and even then only if there is no other reasonable way to protect that life, such as by leaving the situation. Now, by definition, an unborn child has its own life–it is not the same as the mother, but from its conception has its own existence as a recognizable being with all that is necessary to be human, given the needed nourishment and care that the mother’s body is prepared to supply. So, if the unborn child is fully human, and has done nothing to deserve death, then it is the most fully innocent human possible. How can it ever be justified to kill it?
 
I’m curious whether Catholics can disagree with the Pope. I read a lot of posts from Catholics either criticizing the Pope or simply not agreeing.
I have been through my own evolution in my faith and time and time again have realized through many ways how wrong I was and end up agreeing with the Church.
I wonder, if we disagree with any part of the Church teachings or even what Pope Francis says does that mean we have more growing in our faith to do? Does that mean we are not as familiar?
From my husband’s perspective (former Atheist) we (Catholics) don’t seem to be very free when we are told what to think, believe etc.
Thank you any thing will help
As Americans, we often equate freedom with liberty = the ability to do whatever I want.

However, as Catholics (or Christians), freedom is somewhat different, as Paul describes in Romans, especially chapter 7, on sin and the law, but also several other chapters. He asks, how are we free? When we sin? No–sin enslaves us. We are free only when we act in God.

So when the Church sets out the truth, and teaches us how to act in good ways, it is simply following the lead of Christ himself, who taught us how to live so as to be free–free from the slavery of sin, free in God to be ourselves.

As for me, I find that submitting my will to accept what the Church teaches, even when I disagree or find it hard to understand, is to accept that my will too is corrupted by sin, and that I trust what God has given me: the Church, with the promise that it will not stray very far, but that the Holy Spirit will guide it always.
 
Im really having a hard time with this Pope because of the faith he gives to big government programs and institutions. For example, in his leaked enciclycal, hes for the creation of a new super organization on Climate Change. Im sorry if im a skeptic but big orgs like that eventually become so corrrupt, it hurts the poor countries he says he wants to help.

There are so many points… There are more people eating today than ever before, largely because of ease of trade, technology and free markets. There are less infant mortality rate than ever before in human history also attribted to things Pope Francis condems. He can easily say “change your life style” but im sure he will still travel on planes instead of horses.

I disagree with this Pope but i also see that he disagrees with Popes before him. We are asked to deffend the faith, but tomorrow, the Pope might ask us to start deffending communion for the divorced and gay marriage. It is not very Biblical to ask us to submit to “mother nature” when Genesis clearly points out it is the other way arround.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top