Can I still be Catholic if I don’t necessarily believe in everything the church teaches?

[Ender]

Agreed. There are cases when “doing (objective) wrong” is not personally sinful but in fact may require heroic virtue.
The objective act is of course still disordered.
However that is not properly called a personal sin.

The question I was responding to was the case where someone believes the church is wrong and their position is right. That there may extreme circumstances when unusual action is permitted doesn’t address the much more common situation where the person simply rejects a particular teaching - like the prohibition against contraception - and acts “according to one’s conscience.” In such a case it seems highly unlikely that such an action is not considered a sin for which the person will in fact be held accountable.

 

[Sophie111]

You are certainly entitled to your personal prudential view on how common or not such graced but erroneous conscientious decisions take place in the Catholic community. But you will find no infallible pronouncement from Church authority to back you up as its only for God to know with certainty I would think.

If 40% of practising Catholics see no sin in contracepting under certain serious circumstances I personally believe that the majority will be acting in good faith as the light of natural law is dim in this area even for many sincere theologians let alone the faithful.

In the end who cares if its left to God and these individuals alone. Many would confess it anyways even if they didnt believe its sinful. Such issues of private dissent are really non issues in practise in the Catholic Church so this topic is pretty much of no consequence I would think.

 

[chessnerd321]

Depends what you mean by disagree. If you don’t agree with the church on something like contraception, but do what she asks anyway that’s ok. There’s certain teachings I don’t quite see the Church’s way, but since the church is accurate in many other regards as far as I can tell AND they have HS making sure they don’t err, then I give in and assent.

If you use contraception, despite knowing church teaching you’re imperiling your soul (my nice way of saying possibly going to hell), but you’re still better off catholic. (Lumen Gentium 14. below)

The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion. He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart.” All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

 

[yankeesouth]

I forget who but some priest made the comment that it’s funny how ‘primacy of conscience’ only seemed to apply to sexual morality and sanctity of life issues and never seems to be the counsel for racism or helping the poor. lol

 

[Catholicwife32]

In terms of Purgatory, I think this is a larger issue having a incomplete understanding of the Church’s view on sin and salvation. It’s very easy to focus exclusively on St. Anselm’s theory of the atonement and then to adopt the Protestant understanding that “Well, Christ’s sacrifice did it all, so why should Purgatory exist?”

St. Anselm’s argument on the atonement needs to be enlightened by other theories, especially OLDER ones. The Catholic Church also needs to grow in a re-emphasis on the doctrine of divinization. It actually makes more sense if you understand what grace is supposed to be doing in you.

I think this lack of understanding also may tie into your difficulty in understanding the Church’s teaching on contraception. A lot of Catholics get around this by framing it around being more pro life, but it is actually about marital chastity. Afterall, you can use contraception from a responsible parent mentality rather than a cultural contraceptive mentality. That STILL doesn’t cover the fullness of the teaching. But it’s easier for people to embrace when they reject the principles of responsible parenthood as set in Humanae Vitae and instead assume the Pope was just complimenting them for their generosity in having a large family.

 

[Gorgias]

Agreed. There are cases when “doing (objective) wrong” is not personally sinful but in fact may require heroic virtue.
The objective act is of course still disordered.
However that is not properly called a personal sin.

No. Objective sin is objective sin. What you’re looking to express here is culpability, not sinfulness.

A person may be more culpable or less culpable due to subjective circumstances. Nevertheless, he has committed a personal sin.

I think the confusion here is the idea that conscience is about ‘sin’. It’s not. It’s about culpability, as it were.

Your conscience doesn’t tell you whether an act is objectively sinful – your understanding of God’s Natural Law and the Church’s teaching on it is what tells you what’s objectively sinful. In fact, “forming one’s conscience” isn’t about “learning about what’s sinful”, either! The conscience, properly speaking, is about making a judgment of whether to take a concrete action at a particular time.

So, your conscience asks the question, “is this action which I’m considering sinful?”, but that’s not all it asks. More critically, your conscience asks, “should I take this action?” Whether or not you agree with the teachings of the Church, your conscience – if well formed – will say “no” to things that are sinful and “yes” to things that are not.

So, “I don’t agree with the Church in this matter” isn’t an example of your conscience talking to you. It’s an instance of your intellect reaching a conclusion. (That conclusion might be right, or it might be wrong.) A well-formed conscience tells you “even though I don’t understand or agree with the Church, I still shouldn’t do this thing that is sinful.”

 

[Gorgias]

If 40% of practising Catholics see no sin in contracepting under certain serious circumstances I personally believe that the majority will be acting in good faith

They might be. That doesn’t mean it’s not sinful nevertheless, though.

 

[Sophie111]

No. Objective sin is objective sin.

If you go into the matter theologically I belive you will find yourself mistaken if you wish to push this to a black and white answer.
“Objectivs sin” is a mental abstraction. Only the sin of individual persons actually exists.

The only true sin is personal sin…and it must be fully intended and of grave matter.

The phrase you are really looking for is “grave matter”. This is the objective part but can only be called “sin” by analogy or a loose non theological use of language. This is common in the OT and even older Catechisms until more recent times when the CCC clarified the things more clearly.

The Commandments therefore are not a list of “mortal sins” because they are about laws not the human acts of persons in all their detail.
They do identify “grave matter” which, if a person fully intends and understands, will then be personal mortal sin.

Just look it up in the CCC if you disagree with me.

BTW your theology of conscience seems to have weak legs. Are you self taught or have you received extensive tertiary academic training in this area?

 

[Sophie111]

Glad you agree with me that many may not be sinning at all.

 

[Ender]

They do identify “grave matter” which, if a person fully intends and understands, will then be personal mortal sin.

What we have been discussing recently are those Catholics who reject church doctrine on contraception. Given that they have rejected the doctrine it cannot be said they do not understand it, and given that they fully intended their actions, what would keep this from being considered a personal, mortal sin?

 

[Gorgias]

The only true sin is personal sin…and it must be fully intended and of grave matter.

Umm… no. There is both venial and mortal sin. There is both sin of grave matter and sin of venial matter. If you think otherwise… well, then I’m not the one who’s mistaken.

The phrase you are really looking for is “grave matter”. This is the objective part

Just look it up in the CCC if you disagree with me.

No, you’re mistaken. And yes! Let me point you to the catechism:

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

Note that the catechism calls two distinct things “venial sin” – both of which, then, are ‘sin’ (not ‘disorder’), and only one which is ‘grave matter’:

• lack of observance of the standards of moral law
• grave matter without full knowledge and complete consent.

So, if you want to claim that the only sin is “grave”, then – with all due respect – you’re mistaken.

Moreover, this means that your assertion – that I’m talking about ‘grave matter’ – is likewise inaccurate. I really am talking about culpability.

BTW your theology of conscience seems to have weak legs. Are you self taught or have you received extensive tertiary academic training in this area?

Yes, I have a graduate degree in theology. Do you?

Glad you agree with me that many may not be sinning at all.

Again – reading skills can be your friend. It is sin, even if it isn’t mortal sin. Someone has done you a disservice by teaching you that the only sin is “mortal sin”. That just plain isn’t what the Church teaches.

 

[Sophie111]

You are not God who sees to the heart where personal sin resides.

All Man sees is the external breaking of the Commandments…grave matter.

Anything else is between them and their PP.

Anything further by lay persons is of the devil I suggest.
Which is likely what Pope Francis meant when he said “who am I to judge.”

 

[Sophie111]

Yes, I have a graduate degree in theology. Do you?

Yes I do seeing you ask.
Mine were wholly dedicated to Moral Theology and philosphy. I can see yours wasnt.

PS strictly speaking the only true sin is personal mortal sin. And following a firm well informed conscience may well be grace-ful, and not even venial sin…though the matter still be disordered.

 

[Gorgias]

Mine were wholly dedicated to Moral Theology and philosphy. I can see yours wasnt.

Clearly, my education was wholly dedicated to Catholic moral theology. I can see yours wasn’t.

PS strictly speaking the only true sin is personal mortal sin.

OK, I’ll bite… got any citations – preferably, from magisterial sources – that make that remarkable claim?

 

[Sophie111]

OK, I’ll bite… got any citations – preferably, from magisterial sources – that make that remarkable claim?

This is how I observe your degrees could not have fully specialised in Moral Theology as you seem wholly unaware of this common aphorism of such professors to post grad seminarians.

Augustines commonly accepted definition of sin primarily defines actual mortal sin … and venial sin more by analogy.

“Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam”

 

[Gorgias]

you seem wholly unaware of this common aphorism of such professors to post grad seminarians.

No… I’m just pointing out that you’re taking to extremes an aphorism that doesn’t deny that venial sin is sin (albeit sin that isn’t fatal).

And, as much as I love the fact that you want to quote some Latin, it’s amusing that (1) you seem to have missed my request to quote a magisterial source and (2) the actual Latin (from Augustine’s Contra Faustus) is literally saying what I’m claiming and you’re denying: that " Sin, then, is any transgression in deed, or word, or desire, of the eternal law."

But hey… that was a really nice try.

 

[Sophie111]

I know better than to argue with those who believe they are learned.
I simply leave you and others to read Aquinas’s commentary on Augustines definition.
He agrees, as my professors stated, that the primary definition of sin is actual mortal sin …venial sin is but an imperfect child thereof. (Hint, do you really understand what Eternal Law is).

As I say, following a firm and well formed but objectively erroneous conscience is not uncommon. And the human act involved may well not only be non venial but actually virtuous.

Which is how Pope Francis would allow some discerned couples sexually active in certain types of irregular cohabitations to receive Communion.

I can see your theology would cause you to have significant difficulty with that discipline.

We must just then agree to disagree.

 

[Gorgias]

I know better than to argue with those who believe they are learned.

Sadly, I wish I could say the same thing.

I simply leave you and others to read Aquinas’s commentary on Augustines definition.

Are you speaking simply of ST I-II.71.6? If so (and I hope not), then how do you conclude “mortal only” from Aquinas’ assertion that sin is a bad human act? Not a mortally sinful human act, but simply a bad human act?

The best I can charitably take from your assertion is Aquinas’ claim that the theologian’s conception of sin is “offense against God”, while the moral philosopher’s is merely as something “contrary to reason.” If you count yourself among the latter, I can see why – contra Aquinas – you’d say that, if something appears reasonable, it cannot be considered sin.

Of course, Aquinas concludes by pointing out that God’s eternal law surpasses human reason. With that observation, I’ll leave you to your musings.

 

[crenfro]

Hello.

Have you tried studying the issues you’re wrestling with in more depth?

I’d suggest contacting a good apologist on this site or at EWTN. How well do you know these issues? Before you form conclusions about them, be sure to find out everything you can.

I beg you not to leave the Catholic faith until you see it in all its beauty and fullness of truth.

You are in my prayers. Please pray for me.

 

[Shasta-Rose]

I wouldn’t worry. Obviously, a lot of Catholics are practicing birth control. You see a lot of one-child and two-children families. If everybody who was using birth control to limit their families was told to leave the church, probably 90 percent of those in the pews would have to get up and leave. And nobody wants that, especially now with the shrinking congregations. Fortunately, nobody is quizzing people about how they limit their family size. This would seem to be one of those “don’t ask, don’t tell” situations. You are a believer and you are attending church regularly, receiving the Eucharist, and confessing now and then, so I’d say you are as good a Catholic as most people. You’re not really aspiring to sainthood anyway, right? What is it they say about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good? If I were you, I wouldn’t over-analyze this. Go to your church, worship God, live your life as well as you can, and ignore the nay-sayers, of whom there are plenty.