Can Catholics think for themselves or are they required blind obedience?

[Rozellelily]

I am a non practicing Catholic born woman.
I don’t agree with some of the things of the Catholic Church so bear with me.

I’m aware that in the area of faith and morals the church is said to be infallible and i accept that,but even when I read thinks like the below Wikipedia article mentioning “religious submission of mind,will and intellect” required for Ordinary Magisterium, it would seem to me that the Catholic Church is requiring blind obedience and to not have your own mind.
Why would they require submission of mind/will/intellect in matters that can have error?

Magisterium - Wikipedia

Are most people Catholics because they choose to be or is it rather an “organisation” that bosses you around and tells you what to think and not think?

I worded that extremely poorly but what I’m trying to say is was the Catholic Church made for Jesus or was Jesus made for the Church?
Ie:shouldn’t the Church’s existence be to always reinforce what Jesus said but sometimes it seems to “take on a life of its own” where people get more concerned about following the rules of the Church itself.
Like when people be Catholic for Catholic’s sake instead of because of purely Jesus (I hope that makes sense).

 

[Kei]

Both.
Look at the various theological opinions that abound.

Some things you aren’t allowed to deny and be Catholic. For instance, you cannot be Catholic if you do not believe in God.

The Church was started by Jesus, but in a mystical way, we are Jesus’ Body.

Authority is a thing given by God, and it is a good to be obedient to the proper authority. For instance, if God Himself told you to, say, not eat a certain fruit from a certain tree, you should not eat them.

All of Catholicism is centered around God and Christ.
I’m not sure what you have in mind with “for Catholicism sake” to where it wouldn’t also be for Christ’s sake unless said person was misinformed or ignorant or something.

 

[Rozellelily]

I

m not sure what you have in mind with “for Catholicism sake” to where it wouldn’t also be for Christ’s sake unless said person was misinformed or ignorant or something.

I’m not sure how to explain it properly but I know when it happens the “fruits” can sometimes be negative-

One “fruit example” is when people fight about religion.

It doesn’t have to be physical fighting but even verbal where people fight due to believing my religion or denomination is true and yours isn’t.

(I don’t just mean objectively believing your religion is true but I mean more regarding people who fight about it).

 

[Kei]

I don’t understand how someone could fight over it if they didn’t believe it was objectively true.

 

[misstherese]

Are most people Catholics because they choose to be or is it rather an “organisation” that bosses you around and tells you what to think and not think?

I am Catholic because I have looked at the evidence and believed it to be Truth. I believe that God likes authority, and He exercises His authority through the Church.

I don’t feel bossed around…It’s more a feeling of a shepherd and his flock. However, I do have a mind of my own and I often have to discern whether something is right. For instance, priests or bishops or even the pope (most of the time) aren’t infallible. But when I know they are right I find it important to obey because it is the humble way and the way that will lead me to Jesus because He likes obedience.

 

[adgloriam]

@Rozellelily If I’m not mistaken, the only thing you are “required” to believe as a catholic are the “dogmas”. There is a list with about 100 dogmas, read them first.

I don’t agree with some of the things of the Catholic Church so bear with me.

You bear with us, and take your time to research and think about it. We’ll be here when you have questions.

Why would they require submission of mind/will/intellect in matters that can have error?

First look at the dogmas and think with your heart if you believe the dogmas.

Can Catholics think for themselves

It’s mandatory for a catholic to think for himself.

or are they required blind obedience?

Some catholics like priests and nuns take a “vow of obedience”, that does not mean they do not “think for themselves” they do, or that the “vow is blind” it isn’t! They simply take a “vow” in full knowledge of obeying their superiors because they want to. (But that, is an advanced subject that shouldn’t concern you right now. Just look at the dogmas to start with.)

God bless you girl!

 

[po18guy]

Those “rules” are revealed to mankind through the Church, not by the Church. They form a protective barrier - not to keep you in, but to keep evil away. You are truly free only when you are not enslaved to your passions or the desires of this world.

 

[Rozellelily]

@Kei
I should clarify my comment.
I meant all Catholics think their religion is objectively true but not all Catholics verbally argue with people of other religions /denims or with agnostics or atheists etc.

 

[Vico]

…
I’m aware that in the area of faith and morals the church is said to be infallible and i accept that,but even when I read thinks like the below Wikipedia article mentioning “religious submission of mind,will and intellect” required for Ordinary Magisterium, it would seem to me that the Catholic Church is requiring blind obedience and to not have your own mind.
…

The key phrases in the Latin canon law for Catholic assent are:

• for that which is to be believed one is “bound to avoid any contrary doctrines” and
• for defined teachings, on faith and morals, they are “to be held definitively”:

Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.

§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Are most people Catholics because they choose to be or is it rather an “organisation” that bosses you around and tells you what to think and not think?

We have another thread going discussing this, but the bottom line is that compared to many other faiths, the Church in practice leaves a huge amount up to one’s individual conscience, to the point where many people are very uncomfortable that there isn’t a clearer, more commanding “rule book”.

There are a few things that we absolutely have to believe to be Catholic - basically it’s all listed in the Creed, "I believe in God, the Father Almighty, " etc. The vast majority of Catholics today do not have an issue with the stuff in the Creed (to the extent they even understand all of what’s in it that they are professing to every Sunday).

But if you’re looking for a religion to tell you what to do every day in your daily life, so you don’t have to think for yourself, Catholicism nowadays isn’t it.

My 2 cents.

 

[jfz178]

In my 65 years of being a Catholic, the only time I have been preached to about Canon Law or the Catechism has been on internet message boards and one of my spiritual advisors was a retired Canon Lawyer. My view is that if Christ said it, I believe it. If later, a mortal, or group of mortals, decided to add some interpretation that goes beyond what Jesus explicitly said, that has less credibility for me.

If it is the bishops or the Pope, I will listen and carefully consider, because they are holy and learned. But those clergy still have free will, along with biases and personal ambitions. They may get divine guidance, but that is not divine mind control. They can still believe their personal opinions are divinely inspired when they are not. Can anyone deny that is not possible? And if it is some self-proclaimed “Catechist” or “Apologist” I don’t even know what to make of it. Those are not even roles in the Church I am familiar with. Where are they in the hierarchy? They aren’t ordained, and all they seem to be able to do is quote Church documents. Anyone can do that.

Also, if something is divinely inspired, it should make sense and it is the responsibility of the clergy to find ways to make it make sense to people and not just beat people over the head with it. They should be able to justify what they say from the teachings of Christ, not just cite John 16:7-15 and say, “This gives us the license to proclaim whatever we want as the teachings of God.” It is an illogical, circular argument to say, "We have the authority to say this bit of scripture gives us the authority to say what this bit of scripture, and every other bit of scripture, means.

I have always been taught that the Church exists to help me get closer to God, not that God exists as a rationale for forcing me closer to the Church.

 

[Rozellelily]

How is it matching though with

[quote Wikipedia article mentioning “religious submission of mind,will and intellect” required for Ordinary Magisterium
[/quote

please?

 

[Arkansan]

It can be morally wrong to disbelieve the certain conclusions of the practical sciences (e.g. that mixing ammonia with bleach produces chlorine gas) without good cause, so it makes perfect sense for the same to apply to the teachings of the Magisterium. And since the Church is guided by God, it would require extremely (i.e. practically unattainable) compelling reasons to justify dissent from her teachings, even when not strictly infallible. Theological and moral questions often require very subtle reasoning, and the likelihood of a given individual having made an error in reasoning is more likely than the Magisterium having done so.

IOW, once God’s guidance of the Church is granted, it follows logically that the teaching of the Church should hold greater persuasive power than any but the most self-evidently true direct argument.

 

[po18guy]

The Catholic faith appears much more demanding from without than it does from within. Actually, it has more assurance and consolation than any other world religion. More history. More charitable works. More advancement of western civilization. More advancement of science. More of, well, everything. Bad behavior? Yes, that, too, but none of it is taught by the Church. Quite the opposite.

 

[Rozellelily]

@Arkansan

But even priests seem to disagree with each other about some things don’t they?

 

[Arkansan]

There are many issues that are open questions, and freely debated by Catholic theologians. The ordinary magisterium isn’t simply “anything a priest says”.

 

[casslean]

If you follow the Wikipedia article (which is hardly the most authoritative source, but we’ll go with it) through to the article of “Religious assent”, it explains that there are actually gradations of assent, and there are few things on which we are expected to give “Religious submission of mind, will and intellect” and what that means.

From Donum Veritatis:

When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith. (emphasis added)

So yes, there are times we are compelled to accept things we may not fully understand because of our faith that God will direct our spiritual leaders appropriately. But not everything, and it doesn’t mean we can’t search to understand those teachings and the foundations behind them.

Also from (then) Fr. Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI

While the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, and Joseph Ratzinger (as a priest-theologian) taught that “over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else,” it is not “an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine,” and the Catholic is obliged to form it according to Catholic teaching.

Hope that helps.

 

[Thom18]

Think for yourself all you want, but when Rome speaks; listen.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

How is it matching though with

[quote Wikipedia article mentioning “religious submission of mind,will and intellect” required for Ordinary Magisterium

[/quote

please?

I don’t think Wikipedia is generally a great source to turn to when considering how the Catholic Church works. However, since the section you’re concerned about seems to be a direct quote from Lumen Gentium, it can be addressed.

This quote has come up before on the forum. The bishops and Pope in the past used to speak fairly infrequently, and their pronouncements would have to be passed down to the congregations probably through the local clergy reading a letter from the pulpit or similar. Therefore, when the bishop or Pope said something, it was a big deal and probably concerned something clearly tied to “faith or morals” (such as, don’t believe this heretical teaching going around, or make sure you follow these rules for receiving Communion, etc.). Nowadays, the bishop and the Pope seem to be popping off with an opinion every day on some current event, it’s immediately communicated via news media, a lot of it seems to have a tenuous connection to “faith or morals” or the morality of an action could be varyingly interpreted, and we would have to be blindly obeying a lot of stuff, even if we could keep up with all of it.

My personal opinion of the section is that if it’s clearly tied to “faith or morals” then we should follow the guidance. If the connection to “faith or morals” is less clear (example: bishop’s statements on global warming, where reasonable minds might come to different moral conclusions), we should thoughtfully consider what is being said, treat it with respect, look at the underlying principle and see if we’re applying it properly in our lives, and make some reasonable judgment about whether we can or can’t go along with what is being said.

I just did that in a post somewhere about what the Pope says on homeless giving. I thoughtfully considered what the Pope is saying about communication and dignity being important, as well as the concepts of kindness and charity. I was respectful about it and didn’t bash the Pope. After this consideration, I concluded that I am still not going to be giving money to homeless if I feel like they’re either targeting me for appeals (and may not even really need the money as their basic needs are being met), or if I feel personally unsafe getting out my money or showing that I have money. I feel okay about this decision. I’m not calling anybody filth, I’m not being uncharitable, and I’m taking responsibility for my decision (noting that it keeps me safer but may make me less personally holy than someone who helps without worrying about getting targeted or robbed).

 

[Rozellelily]

I don’t understand this quote:

While the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, and Joseph Ratzinger (as a priest-theologian) taught that “over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else,” it is not “an autonomous and exclusive authority for deciding the truth of a doctrine,” and the Catholic is obliged to form it according to Catholic teaching

How, in a practical sense, can ones conscience be higher than the Pope but at the same time not be fit for deciding truth of a doctrine?