Catholic Sexual Morality

[Rau]

This is largely new ground for science, and as such it would be irresponsible to claim “conclusive results”, even if that’s what we all prefer. I do think this raises interesting questions about our understanding of gender. Note that I say “questions”, not “answers”.

On the other hand, science does show that not everyone is 100% biologically male or female. Maybe the Catholic view is that these instances are disorders of some kind, but I’m not sure scientific data agrees - unusual is not the same disordered or dysfunctional. So I am trying to understand how to process this. There are more options than two polar genders, and complementarianism could still be functional while acknowledging that - in the sense that people complement each other. I complement my coworkers, my sisters, my spouse, etc. - the implication of “roles” however, might conflict with this understanding. However it doesn’t conflict with Scripture any more than heleocentrism does.

Are you positing that, say, homosexuality, or a person with an odd chromosomal makeup, or a transgendered person is merely a (relatively unusual) instance of the normal (“as designed”) variations of sex?

What motivation, or what evidence, would lead you to favour that hypothesis over the notion that these persons have experienced some form of defect in their makeup?

And by the way, are there moral implications arising from how these unususual instances arise?

 

[MJJean]

It is very interesting! I do think acceptance is key, which is why I find it strange that some have suggested surgery is acceptable for intersex people.

This is largely new ground for science, and as such it would be irresponsible to claim “conclusive results”, even if that’s what we all prefer. I do think this raises interesting questions about our understanding of gender. Note that I say “questions”, not “answers”.

On the other hand, science does show that not everyone is 100% biologically male or female. Maybe the Catholic view is that these instances are disorders of some kind, but I’m not sure scientific data agrees - **unusual is not the same disordered or dysfunctional. **So I am trying to understand how to process this. There are more options than two polar genders, and complementarianism could still be functional while acknowledging that - in the sense that people complement each other. I complement my coworkers, my sisters, my spouse, etc. - the implication of “roles” however, might conflict with this understanding. However it doesn’t conflict with Scripture any more than heleocentrism does.

Just commenting on the intersexed here.

I think the bolded are grey areas and would best be handled by taking the advice of medical doctors in combination with the advice of the Catholic Bio-ethics Center. ncbcenter.org/

From what I understand, those born intersexed usually have an outside that does not match the inside. Male genitalia with interior female sex organs, female genitalia with interior male sex organs, no clear exterior sex characteristics with interior sex organs of either sex and so on. Also from limited research it seems many of these poor souls are unable to function sexually and/or unable to have children. So, I’d say that is indeed a disorder or dysfunction.

I think in those cases sex assignment surgery once primary gender/sex has been determined is not altering the natural body, but correcting a clear physical medical condition. Correcting a physical medical condition is morally acceptable.

No matter how the Church handles the specifics related to individuals, we’re called to treat those with abnormalities with charity, respect, and compassion.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Deep breath. Here we go.

I’m considering converting to Catholicism. I will be talking to local priests and taking RCIA classes in due time, but I want to dig into some of the theological areas that I am wrestling with. I ask for your patience as I am still in the early stages of learning.

The teachings that worry me the most regard:

1. pre-marital sex
2. heteronormative perspective on marriage
3. contraception
4. ordination of women

Hi and welcome!

I can tell you that you are not alone in these struggles. Not all Catholics readily accept these teachings. As you probably know, the a great many Catholics use contraception, and studies have show Catholics to be among the friendliest Christian groups in the United States in their attitude towards same-sex marriage. Of course, many of these people may be non-practicing Catholics, yet many of them do attend church and simultaneously struggle, honestly, to adhere to all of church teaching on sexual morality.

The issues you bring up are the primary teachings I continue to struggle with as a Catholic. I struggle philosophically and scientifically, as you do, but my struggles with church teaching are reinforced due to my being gay. I have a very hard time reconciling my deep longing to be in a relationship with another person, who happens to be the same sex as me, and my Catholic faith. We say that the Church’s moral teachings correspond to God’s desire to bring us into communion with Him. Or expressed in another way, the Natural Moral Law (which is supposed to include the moral teachings you bring up) is the prescription for human fulfillment. We are led astray by sin, and sin by its nature is ultimately supposed to take us away from true happiness, the Beatitude we are made for. But the struggle for people that you have mentioned, the people that aren’t clearly male or female in the “ideal,” physical and psychological way, and for people like me, who are gay, exists in the fact that our innermost callings to happiness and fulfillment to be with another person in relationship is deemed as sinful by the Church. And when one tries to follow church teaching in these matters of sex, it often means rejecting the attractions that would otherwise make human life fulfilling. What I mean is this: people who do not fit the picture of male-female complementarity end up hurting under church teaching, But why is this the case? Why is it so hard to follow, especially if the Natural Moral Law, as explained by current church (sexual) teaching, is supposed to lead to human fulfillment?

So I think this is an area of the Church teaching that needs to be fleshed-out.

So what does it mean for someone who is Catholic or who is struggling with these issues but who otherwise is interested in Catholicism? First of all, we should ask, what does it mean to be Catholic? What is it that distinguishes the Catholic from other believers of other faiths? Sometimes, when issues such as this are discussed, it is good to remember that in Christianity, there is an order of importance when it comes to matters of Faith. There is a hierarchy of truth. When Paul went on his missionary journeys, do we think that the first thing he preached about was sexual morality? Of course not. The Catholic faith starts with Christ first. God is the center of the faith. The essence of Catholicism is the belief that God exists as three persons, and this is what the early baptismal professions comprised of. When Christians were baptized, they would align themselves with a basic creed in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed revolve around the belief in the Holy Trinity. This is the core of the Church’s faith. Don’t get so caught up in matters that simply do not equate to what it means to be Catholic.

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #63
Sometimes, when issues such as this are discussed, it is good to remember that in Christianity, there is an order of importance when it comes to matters of Faith.

Since the Catholic Church has the mandate from Christ “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16), and She teaches infallibly on faith and morals, Her teaching on

1. pre-marital sex
2. heteronormative perspective on marriage
3. contraception
4. ordination of women
   is not open to rejection by any real Catholic, and actual dissent is condemned.

Don’t get so caught up in matters that simply do not equate to what it means to be Catholic.

So a Catholic who does not assent to all Catholic dogma and doctrine is in dissent.
The three levels of teaching from Ad Tuendam Fidem are:
1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Thus there is no doctrinal teaching which may be legitimately rejected.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Since the Catholic Church has the mandate from Christ “he that hears you hears Me” (Lk 10:16), and She teaches infallibly on faith and morals, Her teaching on

1. pre-marital sex
2. heteronormative perspective on marriage
3. contraception
4. ordination of women
   is not open to rejection by any real Catholic, and actual dissent is condemned.
   So a Catholic who does not assent to all Catholic dogma and doctrine is in dissent.
   The three levels of teaching from Ad Tuendam Fidem are:
   1) Dogma – infallible (Canon #750.1) to be believed with the assent of divine and Catholic faith.
   2) Doctrine – infallible (Canon #750.2) requires the assent of ecclesial faith, to be “firmly embraced and held”.
   3) Doctrine – non-definitive (non-infallible) and requires intellectual assent (“loyal submission of the will and intellect”, Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium 25), not an assent of faith. See the Explanatory Note on ATF by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

Thus there is no doctrinal teaching which may be legitimately rejected.

While the Church may propose all of her teachings to be equally true, the Church’s teachings are not all equally important. So I am simply emphasizing that when discerning whether or not to become Catholic, there are more important things than others to look into. Is Christ substantially present in the Eucharist, as the Catholic Church maintains, or is he present in a lesser or symbolic way, as most Protestant churches profess? Look to the essence of Christ and Church first. Do we preach the nature of indulgences first or the existence of Heaven?

This issue is of practical importance to those Catholics, like me, who really struggle to apply certain moral teachings in one’s life. Moral teachings that are very much emphasized today (often in an abstract way, without regard to the fact that real persons exist behind issues), ones that are often the focus of evangelization and apologetics, when there are more crucial things that are at stake.

Pope Francis provides a wonderful example of what I am referring to in his Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium:

1. Pastoral ministry in a missionary style is not obsessed with the disjointed transmission of a multitude of doctrines to be insistently imposed. When we adopt a pastoral goal and a missionary style which would actually reach everyone without exception or exclusion, the message has to concentrate on the essentials, on what is most beautiful, most grand, most appealing and at the same time most necessary. The message is simplified, while losing none of its depth and truth, and thus becomes all the more forceful and convincing.
2. All revealed truths derive from the same divine source and are to be believed with the same faith, yet some of them are more important for giving direct expression to the heart of the Gospel. In this basic core, what shines forth is the beauty of the saving love of God made manifest in Jesus Christ who died and rose from the dead. In this sense, the Second Vatican Council explained, “in Catholic doctrine there exists an order or a ‘hierarchy’ of truths, since they vary in their relation to the foundation of the Christian faith”.[38] This holds true as much for the dogmas of faith as for the whole corpus of the Church’s teaching, including her moral teaching.
3. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the Church’s moral teaching has its own “hierarchy”, in the virtues and in the acts which proceed from them.[39] What counts above all else is “faith working through love” (Gal 5:6). Works of love directed to one’s neighbour are the most perfect external manifestation of the interior grace of the Spirit: “The foundation of the New Law is in the grace of the Holy Spirit, who is manifested in the faith which works through love”.[40] Thomas thus explains that, as far as external works are concerned, mercy is the greatest of all the virtues: “In itself mercy is the greatest of the virtues, since all the others revolve around it and, more than this, it makes up for their deficiencies. This is particular to the superior virtue, and as such it is proper to God to have mercy, through which his omnipotence is manifested to the greatest degree”.[41]

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #65
While the Church may propose all of her teachings to be equally true, the Church’s teachings are not all equally important.
This issue is of practical importance to those Catholics, like me, who really struggle to apply certain moral teachings in one’s life.

This does not mean that any doctrine may be evaded or discarded, so all doctrine is worthwhile.

Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L.
‘….summarized by Cardinal Schönborn: “the ‘hierarchy of truth’ does not mean ‘a principle of subtraction,’ as if faith could be reduced to some ‘essentials’ whereas the ‘rest’ is left free or even dismissed as not significant. The ‘hierarchy of truth . . . is a principle of organic structure.’ It should not be confused with the degrees of certainty; it simply means that the different truths of faith are ‘organized’ around a center” (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 42).

**“If the interrelatedness of all of the doctrines regarding both faith and morals is not perceived, one can be left with the impression that it would be possible to accept one or other doctrine, and leave the rest aside” **(Archbishop William Levada, Origins, vol. 23, p. 739). By showing the connections among the articles of faith, the evangelist can lead a person to perceive the integrity and unity of the whole of Catholic faith.
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/dbushman_hiertruths_sept05.asp

Pope Francis: We cannot use Church doctrine as we please
by Madeleine Teahanposted Thursday, 30 Jan 2014
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/01/30/pope-francis-we-cannot-use-church-doctrine-as-we-please/
Speaking during his homily at daily Mass today at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis defined the three ‘pillars’ of belonging as ‘humility,’ ‘fidelity’ and ‘special service.’

Pope Francis said that fidelity was the ‘second pillar.’ He said: “Fidelity to the Church, fidelity to its teaching; fidelity to the Creed; fidelity to the doctrine, safeguarding this doctrine. Humility and fidelity. Even Paul VI reminded us that we receive the message of the Gospel as a gift and we need to transmit it as a gift, but not as a something of ours: it is a gift that we received.”

Quoting Pope Paul VI, Pope Francis said that it was an “absurd dichotomy” to love Christ without loving the Church. He said: “The Christian is not a baptised who receives baptism and then goes on his way. The first fruit of baptism is to make you belong to the Church, the People of God. You cannot understand a Christian without the Church.

November 18, 2014
Pope Francis’s defense of doctrine sends the Associated Press spinning
Dawn Eden
“And how can Pope Francis have a “radical agenda,” if he speaks in favor of traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and IVF?”
getreligion.org/getreligion/2014/11/18/pope-franciss-defense-of-dotrine-sends-the-associated-press-spinning

Thus while some of us do have more of a problem to follow some doctrines than others, Catholics should be concerned that they assent to all doctrine whether infallible or otherwise. As Fr Brian Harrison points out, the third category of doctrine proposed as “ ‘authentic’ or ‘authoritative’…requires from us ‘religious assent of mind and will …as at least morally certain …true…(N)ormally, ‘authentic’ teaching is simply doctrine on the ‘infallibility track,’ as it were…” Fidelity, March 1999, p 31, John XXIII Fellowship Co-op Ltd., Australia].

 

[catholic1seeks]

This does not mean that any doctrine may be evaded or discarded, so all doctrine is worthwhile.

Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L.
‘….summarized by Cardinal Schönborn: “the ‘hierarchy of truth’ does not mean ‘a principle of subtraction,’ as if faith could be reduced to some ‘essentials’ whereas the ‘rest’ is left free or even dismissed as not significant. The ‘hierarchy of truth . . . is a principle of organic structure.’ It should not be confused with the degrees of certainty; it simply means that the different truths of faith are ‘organized’ around a center” (Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 42).

**“If the interrelatedness of all of the doctrines regarding both faith and morals is not perceived, one can be left with the impression that it would be possible to accept one or other doctrine, and leave the rest aside” **(Archbishop William Levada, Origins, vol. 23, p. 739). By showing the connections among the articles of faith, the evangelist can lead a person to perceive the integrity and unity of the whole of Catholic faith.
ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/dbushman_hiertruths_sept05.asp

Pope Francis: We cannot use Church doctrine as we please
by Madeleine Teahanposted Thursday, 30 Jan 2014
catholicherald.co.uk/news/2014/01/30/pope-francis-we-cannot-use-church-doctrine-as-we-please/
Speaking during his homily at daily Mass today at Casa Santa Marta, Pope Francis defined the three ‘pillars’ of belonging as ‘humility,’ ‘fidelity’ and ‘special service.’

Pope Francis said that fidelity was the ‘second pillar.’ He said: “Fidelity to the Church, fidelity to its teaching; fidelity to the Creed; fidelity to the doctrine, safeguarding this doctrine. Humility and fidelity. Even Paul VI reminded us that we receive the message of the Gospel as a gift and we need to transmit it as a gift, but not as a something of ours: it is a gift that we received.”

Quoting Pope Paul VI, Pope Francis said that it was an “absurd dichotomy” to love Christ without loving the Church. He said: “The Christian is not a baptised who receives baptism and then goes on his way. The first fruit of baptism is to make you belong to the Church, the People of God. You cannot understand a Christian without the Church.

**November 18, 2014 **
**Pope Francis’s defense of doctrine sends the Associated Press spinning **
Dawn Eden
“And how can Pope Francis have a “radical agenda,” if he speaks in favor of traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage, abortion, euthanasia, and IVF?”
getreligion.org/getreligion/2014/11/18/pope-franciss-defense-of-dotrine-sends-the-associated-press-spinning

Thus while some of us do have more of a problem to follow some doctrines than others, Catholics should be concerned that they assent to all doctrine whether infallible or otherwise. As Fr Brian Harrison points out, the third category of doctrine proposed as “ ‘authentic’ or ‘authoritative’…requires from us ‘religious assent of mind and will …as at least morally certain …true…(N)ormally, ‘authentic’ teaching is simply doctrine on the ‘infallibility track,’ as it were…” Fidelity, March 1999, p 31, John XXIII Fellowship Co-op Ltd., Australia].

My point simply was not that doctrine can be discarded. I referenced Pope Francis, who says as much: “All revealed truths derive from the same divine source and are to be believed with the same faith.”

But, as Francis also says, and what I am emphasizing, is that there is a core to the faith that we ought to look to, even in the face of the struggles we have in accepting points of doctrine that are far less important than the central truths. I wish to express that church teaching can be difficult, sometimes extremely difficuly, to follow, especially in regards to her moral teachings that seem to directly conflict with the innermost experiences and desires of an individual (for example, people who are homosexual or people who feel that they are “not born the right sex,” to put it one way.) It is this difficulty that calls for sensitivity and understanding when discussing the topic, and I think issues such as these brought up by one Crow_and_dove deserve further attention and development. For many people, saying that “male and female are made for each other” is not enough when people have a seemingly contradictory reality–if not in realityin terms of God’s plan, then at least for them personally, and so calling for a greater depth than just points of doctrine to adhere to.

 

[JimG]

Well, to take just one example of what some may consider a ‘lesser’ issue–contraception. The Church’s teaching on this has been constant for 2,000 years and was even a constant in Protestant teaching for 400 years before the Anglicans made the first move to weaken the teaching.

The results of that weakening enabled the sexual revolution and the sexual and family chaos that followed. I recommend the book “Adam and Eve After the Pill” for a review of the deleterious effects of disregarding that teaching. Church teachings hang together as a unified whole, not a conglomerate of unrelated issues.

 

[clem456]

My point simply was not that doctrine can be discarded. I referenced Pope Francis, who says as much: “All revealed truths derive from the same divine source and are to be believed with the same faith.”

But, as Francis also says, and what I am emphasizing, is that there is a core to the faith that we ought to look to, even in the face of the struggles we have in accepting points of doctrine that are far less important than the central truths. I wish to express that church teaching can be difficult, sometimes extremely difficuly, to follow, especially in regards to her moral teachings that seem to directly conflict with the innermost experiences and desires of an individual (for example, people who are homosexual or people who feel that they are “not born the right sex,” to put it one way.) It is this difficulty that calls for sensitivity and understanding when discussing the topic, and I think issues such as these brought up by one Crow_and_dove deserve further attention and development. For many people, saying that “male and female are made for each other” is not enough when people have a seemingly contradictory reality–if not in realityin terms of God’s plan, then at least for them personally, and so calling for a greater depth than just points of doctrine to adhere to.

It is difficult. It is.
Morality always points us to the good, or our beatitude. Many times people can’t see themselves as part of that good. I’ve struggled with it for years. But we can’t water down the good because people fall short. We need to exhort people to notice the good that morality points us to.
The good is what gets lost in argumentation. We begin to justify morality by pointing to badness. That does not often work, as people reject being told they are bad, as they should. Proclaiming someone’s badness goes against the Gospel. Benediction means to *say good things *about others. We don’t need to point out how awful homosexuality is to proclaim the goodness of our existence, which requires the union of a man and woman.

Male and female are made for each other. That’s not a moral construct or invention. It’s an observation of revealed nature. And it’s good to notice it and proclaim it. (but not to rub it in someone’s face who struggles with it). Christ calls us repeatedly in the Gospel to look and see, to use our sense and reason to notice the good:
“You have heard that it was said”,
“where did we ***see you ***hungry Lord”,
“he ***saw him ***and took pity on him”,
“those who have ears let them hear”.

Think of all the times scripture invites us to be sensible!
And this is the real problem with much of the gay marriage agenda. It is deception. It asks us to go against the reason and common sense we are gifted with and deny what is self evident.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I don’t know if this has been answered or not, but I’ll go with this. Gender is how one “feels” they were created. Masculine, femine, canine, feline…whatever. Sex is the equipment with which they were born. I have a penis, therefore I am male. The fact that I am attracted to women and have been married would denote that my gender is masculine or more male leaning. There are only 2 sexes, male and female.

I think you’re hearing gender and thinking sex. There are only 2 sexes, male and female, but there are probably as many genders as there are people under the sun.

I apologize if I was unclear or using terminology incorrectly. I am referring to not only what you state above, but also people with physical characteristics that make them difficult to classify as a particular sex. Assigning gender based on their sex becomes difficult at best, and some argue it might be better not to force conformity into a binary gender system when such a binary may be largely a social, rather than physical, construct.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

Hi and welcome!

I can tell you that you are not alone in these struggles. Not all Catholics readily accept these teachings. As you probably know, the a great many Catholics use contraception, and studies have show Catholics to be among the friendliest Christian groups in the United States in their attitude towards same-sex marriage. Of course, many of these people may be non-practicing Catholics, yet many of them do attend church and simultaneously struggle, honestly, to adhere to all of church teaching on sexual morality.

The issues you bring up are the primary teachings I continue to struggle with as a Catholic. I struggle philosophically and scientifically, as you do, but my struggles with church teaching are reinforced due to my being gay. I have a very hard time reconciling my deep longing to be in a relationship with another person, who happens to be the same sex as me, and my Catholic faith. We say that the Church’s moral teachings correspond to God’s desire to bring us into communion with Him. Or expressed in another way, the Natural Moral Law (which is supposed to include the moral teachings you bring up) is the prescription for human fulfillment. We are led astray by sin, and sin by its nature is ultimately supposed to take us away from true happiness, the Beatitude we are made for. But the struggle for people that you have mentioned, the people that aren’t clearly male or female in the “ideal,” physical and psychological way, and for people like me, who are gay, exists in the fact that our innermost callings to happiness and fulfillment to be with another person in relationship is deemed as sinful by the Church. And when one tries to follow church teaching in these matters of sex, it often means rejecting the attractions that would otherwise make human life fulfilling. What I mean is this: people who do not fit the picture of male-female complementarity end up hurting under church teaching, But why is this the case? Why is it so hard to follow, especially if the Natural Moral Law, as explained by current church (sexual) teaching, is supposed to lead to human fulfillment?

So I think this is an area of the Church teaching that needs to be fleshed-out.

So what does it mean for someone who is Catholic or who is struggling with these issues but who otherwise is interested in Catholicism? First of all, we should ask, what does it mean to be Catholic? What is it that distinguishes the Catholic from other believers of other faiths? Sometimes, when issues such as this are discussed, it is good to remember that in Christianity, there is an order of importance when it comes to matters of Faith. There is a hierarchy of truth. When Paul went on his missionary journeys, do we think that the first thing he preached about was sexual morality? Of course not. The Catholic faith starts with Christ first. God is the center of the faith. The essence of Catholicism is the belief that God exists as three persons, and this is what the early baptismal professions comprised of. When Christians were baptized, they would align themselves with a basic creed in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Similarly, the Apostles Creed and Nicene Creed revolve around the belief in the Holy Trinity. This is the core of the Church’s faith. Don’t get so caught up in matters that simply do not equate to what it means to be Catholic.

God. Bless. You.:clapping:

 

[Abu]

catholic1seeks #67
I wish to express that church teaching can be difficult, sometimes extremely difficuly, to follow, especially in regards to her moral teachings that seem to directly conflict with the innermost experiences and desires of an individual (for example, people who are homosexual or people who feel that they are “not born the right sex,” to put it one way.) It is this difficulty that calls for sensitivity and understanding when discussing the topic, and I think issues such as these brought up by one Crow_and_dove deserve further attention and development.

What seems to be missing here is the knowledge of the extensive research into homosexuality and its ramifications which have been conducted by many Catholics and others, and the great opportunities available from the Catholic group Courage, among others, to help those so afflicted and to ameliorate their condition. An outstanding study is The Truth About Homosexuality (The Cry of the Faithful), by none other than Fr John F Harvey O.S.F.S., which the late Fr Benedict Groeschel has described as “This book offers not only good advice, wise counsel and intelligent discussion, but also the bright light of hope and fresh insights from some of the most positive Christian thinking in a complex and sensitive area.”

Thus much attention has been devoted to, and worthwhile solutions have been given on, this topic.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I am meeting with a Deacon on Sunday, we will discuss my interest in the Church and hopefully he will point me towards additional resources. I notice a lot of RCIA classes seem to start I’m the fall so I may have to wait a bit.

Dear C&D:

I don’t think RCIA is for you. Talk to the Deacon and be open with him, but I think he will agree with me.

From your posts and questions I am pretty sure that you will find RCIA to be a bore. You need a higher level of philosophical discussion and theology than is offered through the RCIA process. Your questions will go over the head of the average RCIA instructor including the Religious Education Director.

RCIA is limited to very basic stuff. Subjects like Saints, Mass, Sacraments, Social Justice (that always turns into a discussion about helping the homeless) and Holy days. There will also be a focus on some very Catholic things like BINGO, pot luck dinners and bake sales.

I fear that you will not get the answers or the religious challenge you need.

Talk to the Deacon. He may have some suggestions, books, maybe a higher level of study for you.

Good luck.

 

[clem456]

Dear C&D:

I don’t think RCIA is for you. Talk to the Deacon and be open with him, but I think he will agree with me.

From your posts and questions I am pretty sure that you will find RCIA to be a bore. You need a higher level of philosophical discussion and theology than is offered through the RCIA process. Your questions will go over the head of the average RCIA instructor including the Religious Education Director.

RCIA is limited to very basic stuff. Subjects like Saints, Mass, Sacraments, Social Justice (that always turns into a discussion about helping the homeless) and Holy days. There will also be a focus on some very Catholic things like BINGO, pot luck dinners and bake sales.

I fear that you will not get the answers or the religious challenge you need.

Talk to the Deacon. He may have some suggestions, books, maybe a higher level of study for you.

Good luck.

RCIA is not exclusively or even primarily focused on learning philosophy and theology. It is a process of becoming part of the Catholic community. Learning is only a part of that.

In our RCIA process, anyone who has in depth questions simply asks them. But even the most educated people need to go through the process. It’s not just a series of classes.

Our process is a very sound and orthodox presentation of the faith, and it does include eating together, getting to know families, etc…

I don’t think it’s right to tell someone “it’s not for you”. RCIA is for anyone who wants to become Catholic unless the pastor says otherwise.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

RCIA is not exclusively or even primarily focused on learning philosophy and theology. It is a process of becoming part of the Catholic community. Learning is only a part of that.

In our RCIA process, anyone who has in depth questions simply asks them. But even the most educated people need to go through the process. It’s not just a series of classes.

Our process is a very sound and orthodox presentation of the faith, and it does include eating together, getting to know families, etc…

I don’t think it’s right to tell someone “it’s not for you”. RCIA is for anyone who wants to become Catholic unless the pastor says otherwise.

I respect your (name removed by moderator)ut, Clem.

I was involved in a vibrant RCIA process at the parish and diocesan level for 10 years. That was in the 1990’s. Things may have changed since then so I will defer to you.

However…

In my time we had people who joined the RCIA process with “baggage”. Some because a spouse wanted them to convert, some just curious, and some with a preconceived agenda

The teachings that worry me the most regard:

1. pre-marital sex
2. heteronormative perspective on marriage
3. contraception
4. ordination of women

All the above “ain’t gonna change”.

A person with “worries” like that needs more direction than could be offered in any RCIA process that I was involved in. Judging from C&D’s responses so far, I would say it would take more than the local parish RCIA director could handle. Of course I could be wrong.

We had many people who started the process, only to drop out for one reason or another. One guy came back three years in a row before he finally was baptized.

 

[Crow_and_dove]

I appreciate the RCIA advice. I am still planning on going through it because I need to learn the “boring” stuff too. I’m just going to get me some Hans Urs Von Balthazar too!

I am definitely not expecting the RCIA to be anything more than a hopeful beginning.

 

[clem456]

I appreciate the RCIA advice. I am still planning on going through it because I need to learn the “boring” stuff too. I’m just going to get me some Hans Urs Von Balthazar too!

I am definitely not expecting the RCIA to be anything more than a hopeful beginning.

It’s good to have realistic expectations, but RCIA can be much more.
Most of our candidates have powerful experiences and grow quite a bit in the faith.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I appreciate the RCIA advice. I am still planning on going through it because I need to learn the “boring” stuff too. I’m just going to get me some Hans Urs Von Balthazar too!

I am definitely not expecting the RCIA to be anything more than a hopeful beginning.

If you intend to join RCIA with that attitude then I take back what I said and would encourage you to get involved. Hopefully your parish has an interesting and exciting program.

If you are going to tackle Hans Urs Von Balthazar you must be that rare breed who enjoys migraine headaches. If you are in that league, try some Thomas Merton. Then on to something on the light side…anything by Fulton J, Sheen.

When I was helping out with our RCIA program, the director asked me to give a class on the History of the Papacy. (Nothing like condensing a two semester college course into a two hour class with a long coffee & cookie break.) I "blasted’ through it… and gave out assigned reading. (That got me in trouble with the director…no homework…we want them to enjoy this) What I assigned was The Shoes of the Fisherman and/or The Clowns of God…both by Morris West. At the end of the year, I got more compliments from our Candidates about those books than other suggested reading.

 

[clem456]

I just wanted to emphasize that understanding is only part of the faith journey. The process of becoming part of Christ’s Body is more than understanding. concepts, although that is definitely a huge part of it. It is coming to “know” the community in a full sense.
The USCCB emphasizes that RCIA is a process and not just a program of doctrine.
And really, it is the initial step into a community which is ongoing for all of us.
Not all RCIA processes are alike I’m sure.

In my experience, the RCIA process seems to have the most profound effect on those who don’t believe they “need it”.

 

[catholic1seeks]

What seems to be missing here is the knowledge of the extensive research into homosexuality and its ramifications which have been conducted by many Catholics and others, and the great opportunities available from the Catholic group Courage, among others, to help those so afflicted and to ameliorate their condition. An outstanding study is The Truth About Homosexuality (The Cry of the Faithful), by none other than Fr John F Harvey O.S.F.S., which the late Fr Benedict Groeschel has described as “This book offers not only good advice, wise counsel and intelligent discussion, but also the bright light of hope and fresh insights from some of the most positive Christian thinking in a complex and sensitive area.”

Thus much attention has been devoted to, and worthwhile solutions have been given on, this topic.

Much attention? Really?

I would never want to devalue or set aside the good that people are able to receive from groups such as Courage. Some homosexual persons find it beneficial to receive help in groups such as this, which have their own goals in relation to official church moral doctrine. That said, Courage simply is not for everyone. Many homosexual persons feel at a loss in the Church. They are not able to have a meaningful relationship of the kind a straight couple is allowed ot have, the kind of relationship that many homosexual people deeply want. The Church has not provided a great answer regarding the place of the gay person in Church. They are simply to lead celibate lives: That is the ultimate aim, advice, and teaching of current and official moral doctrine.