Catholics who openly dissent from Church Teaching

[Nate13]

@Spock
Your secular argument awaits forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=591025

Also if you were right and there is no secular argument against contraception, then every atheist would be on board for contraception. I don’t believe you can prove that.

 

[Spock]

They reject something they truly do not understand…

You cannot possibly “know” that. They believe - honestly! - that they are right and you are wrong. And here comes the interesting problem, which I already asked many times: "if there is a dissenting opinion concerning the supernatural, what is the epistemology to separate the true and false statements?. (As a matter of fact there is an ongoing thread on the Philosophy forum about this very problem. Needless to say so far there was no real answer.)

Take any question which will lead to dissent. How can anyone find out who is right and who is wrong? There is none. Both sides will assert that they are right and the other party is wrong, and both will say that God is on their side. Since God is “gun-shy” and never comes down to explain, it usually degenerates into “I am right and you are wrong”… “No I am right and you are wrong”… type of childish behavior.

The Church asserts that it is the sole and only guardian of “truth”. What can it bring up as argument? Its own “tradition”. Effectively the Church is a self-proclaimed authority, without any external supporting evidence for its claims.

 

[Nate13]

You cannot possibly “know” that. They believe - honestly! - that they are right and you are wrong. And here comes the interesting problem, which I already asked many times: "if there is a dissenting opinion concerning the supernatural, what is the epistemology to separate the true and false statements?. (As a matter of fact there is an ongoing thread on the Philosophy forum about this very problem. Needless to say so far there was no real answer.)

Take any question which will lead to dissent. How can anyone find out who is right and who is wrong? There is none. Both sides will assert that they are right and the other party is wrong, and both will say that God is on their side. Since God is “gun-shy” and never comes down to explain, it usually degenerates into “I am right and you are wrong”… “No I am right and you are wrong”… type of childish behavior.

The Church asserts that it is the sole and only guardian of “truth”. What can it bring up as argument? Its own “tradition”. Effectively the Church is a self-proclaimed authority, without any external supporting evidence for its claims.

We have historical documents including the Bible as well as its own testimony to the fact. 1 Tim 3:15 tell us the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth

 

[Corki]

How is the view of a non-Catholic relevant? If someone outside of the Church, who does not accept the Church, does not agree with her, that’s one thing. But this thread is about Catholics, those already in the Church, who dissent from her teaching.

 

[ahs]

…"if there is a dissenting opinion concerning the supernatural, what is the epistemology to separate the true and false statements?. (As a matter of fact there is an ongoing thread on the Philosophy forum about this very problem. Needless to say so far there was no real answer.) …The Church asserts that it is the sole and only guardian of “truth”. What can it bring up as argument? Its own “tradition”. Effectively the Church is a self-proclaimed authority, without any external supporting evidence for its claims.

You are arguing whether there is One True Church or not, or whether there is even a God. That is a debate for another thread, another forum (the Philosophy forum as you pointed out).

As I already stated to you, I have no expectation in this thread of converting you to the Catholic Faith. This is addressed to those who profess the Catholic Faith and believe in One God, the Father the Almighty, Creator of Heavne and Earth, of all that is seen and unseen…believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church…

For those people, this thread goes out as a beacon to come to total unity with the Faith which they profess…

At one end of the spectrum are those who…take the tried and true approach of “Faith seeking understanding”…

on the other end of the spectrum are those who take the approach of a "do-it-yourself Faith…or worse…

Wonderful words to meditate on and indeed to return to often from Pope Benedict XVI:

“Paul illustrates the same idea of a necessary renewal of our way of being human in two passages of his Letter to the Ephesians; let us therefore reflect on them briefly. In the Letter’s fourth chapter, the Apostle tells us that with Christ we must attain adulthood, a mature faith. We can no longer be “children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine…” (4: 14). Paul wants Christians to have a “responsible” and “adult faith”. The words “adult faith” in recent decades have formed a widespread slogan. It is often meant in the sense of the attitude of those who no longer listen to the Church and her Pastors but autonomously choose what they want to believe and not to believe hence a do-it-yourself faith. And it is presented as a “courageous” form of self-expression against the Magisterium of the Church. In fact, however, no courage is needed for this because one may always be certain of public applause. Rather, courage is needed to adhere to the Church’s faith, even if this contradicts the “logic” of the contemporary world. This is the non-conformism of faith which Paul calls an “adult faith”. It is the faith that he desires. On the other hand, he describes chasing the winds and trends of the time as infantile. Thus, being committed to the inviolability of human life from its first instant, thereby radically opposing the principle of violence also precisely in the defence of the most defenceless human creatures is part of an adult faith. It is part of an adult faith to recognize marriage between a man and a woman for the whole of life as the Creator’s ordering, newly re-established by Christ. Adult faith does not let itself be carried about here and there by any trend. It opposes the winds of fashion. It knows that these winds are not the breath of the Holy Spirit; it knows that the Spirit of God is expressed and manifested in communion with Jesus Christ. However, here too Paul does not stop at saying “no”, but rather leads us to the great “yes”. He describes the mature, truly adult faith positively with the words: “speaking the truth in love” (cf. Eph 4: 15). The new way of thinking, given to us by faith, is first and foremost a turning towards the truth. The power of evil is falsehood. The power of faith, the power of God, is the truth. The truth about the world and about ourselves becomes visible when we look to God. And God makes himself visible to us in the Face of Jesus Christ. In looking at Christ, we recognize something else: truth and love are inseparable. In God both are inseparably one; it is precisely this that is the essence of God. For Christians, therefore, truth and love go together. Love is the test of truth. We should always measure ourselves anew against this criterion, so that truth may become love and love may make us truthful.”
**
~Pope Benedict XVI**

(read the whole thing…it is splendid! Do not miss a word…

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20090628_chius-anno-paolino_en.html)

 

[ahs]

…If someone outside of the Church, who does not accept the Church, does not agree with her, that’s one thing. But this thread is about Catholics, those already in the Church, who dissent from her teaching.

Thank you!!

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Yes, it can happen, after all we are not a species to regard highly. As a matter of fact I think that the bonobos are vastly superior to humans when it comes to moral behavior. They make love not war. We have a lot to learn and evolve before we can reach their level of morality.

Then you point it out, by telling them where do they go wrong. However that is not supposed happen by using the age-old: “because I said so!” type of argument. Looks like that you are adamant in believing that they are wrong - just because they dissent. I have never seen a coherent, secular argument against the process of contraception, and likely will never see one.

There is no such object as “truth”, even if you capitalize it. There are zillions of true and false statements, of course. And they all refer to something in some specific environment. I can think of propositions which will always evaluate to “true” - as long as there is someone to make that proposition. Those propositions are called tautologies, irrelevant utterances.

Because it is the thinking process that can lead to true propositions, not the mindless swallowing of some dogma. Of course there is no guarantee that the end result will be true. That is why we MUST have the open marketplace of ideas to discuss things, even if they happen to be controversial. There is no human being, even with the IQ of 500 who would be as smart as one million of average guys together.

Good for you!

I am not one of them.

You know what is really ironic? Jesus was the ultimate “librul”, who went against all the establishment, and who was duly crucified for trying to rock “the boat”. If he would come back today as a simple human in disguise, the Catholic Church (the ultimate bastion of conservatism and traditionalism) would be on the forefront to crucify him again - if, of course it still had the power to do so. Fortunately those times are over and hopefully will never come back again.

Actually, I’ll take issue with only a couple of things here. First, you acknowledge that some ideas and concepts can be wrong. . .but you don’t seem to be able to say why they ARE wrong. Either something is always wrong, sometimes wrong, or never wrong. . .

If something is always wrong, or never wrong (IOW, absolute), then you can always teach and/or learn, because you have a CONSTANT.

But if something is ‘sometimes’ wrong. . .then everything becomes relative and everything will ‘shift’ depending on whatever factors ‘relate’ at the time. You can’t teach or learn, you can only ‘react’ to whatever factors are most strongly ‘proposed’ as being most relevant.

Finally your last paragraph was troublesome. First, Jesus was neither ‘liberal’ NOR conservative. And he was NOT, I’ll repeat that, NOT crucified because He ‘went against the establishment.’ Sorry, Spock, but that’s just a talking point from the hippie generation. Totally false. Christ was crucified TO SAVE US FROM OUR SINS. NOTHING to do with ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or 'establishment.

And the utter cynicism of claiming the Church would ‘crucify Him again’ is breathtakingly offensive to Christians. . .though I’m sure you didn’t mean it to be. You might even think you’re right. . .but you aren’t, even if you go point by point and ‘demonstrate’ how you reasoned from point A to point B. . .it’s just that along the way, some or all of your points were themselves incorrect.

 

[erine]

Just an aside to the OP’s post, I don’t know why anyone would use abc after learning how much better NFP marriages do in general

 

[samiam1611]

some people are not

 

[Ocarm]

Jesus was neither ‘liberal’ NOR conservative.

Agree.

And he was NOT, I’ll repeat that, NOT crucified because He ‘went against the establishment.’ Sorry, Spock, but that’s just a talking point from the hippie generation. Totally false. Christ was crucified TO SAVE US FROM OUR SINS.

Disagree.

The realisation of God’s salvific plan was the effect of the crucifixion, not the cause (to claim otherwise is to say that Jesus’s death was pre-destined, and that the free will of the people who executed him was compromised, which belief would be massively problematic).

The Roman and Jewish authorities tried and crucified Jesus because they saw him as a demagogue and a political/religious criminal, not because they were wilfully co-operating with God’s economy of grace. In other words, the motivation for the crucifixion was indeed because Jesus ‘went against the establishment’. The result was not incidental to God’s plan for humanity (obviously enough) but it was incidental to the motivation of his executioners: they did not crucify him ‘TO SAVE US FROM OUR SINS.’

With respect, you’re conflating human motivations with the divine will. I don’t agree with Spock’s conclusions, but he is correct regarding the proximate (as opposed to divine) causes underlying Jesus’s passion. Since it was the former that he was referencing, I don’t think you can refute his arguments by referencing the latter alone; that’s moving the goalposts, as we say here in the UK.

 

[Spock]

Actually, I’ll take issue with only a couple of things here. First, you acknowledge that some ideas and concepts can be wrong. . .but you don’t seem to be able to say why they ARE wrong.

It all depends. There is no “one size fits all”.

But if something is ‘sometimes’ wrong. . .then everything becomes relative and everything will ‘shift’ depending on whatever factors ‘relate’ at the time.

So far, so good.

You can’t teach or learn, you can only ‘react’ to whatever factors are most strongly ‘proposed’ as being most relevant.

That does not follow. Suppose there would be a huge medical breakthrough, which would allow people resurrected even if they were killed. All of a sudden murder would become a relatively minor inconvenience, and would cease to be a serious question.

Finally your last paragraph was troublesome. First, Jesus was neither ‘liberal’ NOR conservative.

In my opinion he was. He went against the established church of the time. He proclaimed the fraternity of all people, embracing the poor, too. That was an unheard of change from the generally accepted standards. (Too bad he never raised his voice against slavery, or neglected to teach that washing your hands would prevent diseases. We had to wait almost two millenia for Ignaz Semmelweiss to teach us that simple, yet wonderful preventive method. He could have taught us that lice are not the pearls of God… and a few other practical good ideas.)

Christ was crucified TO SAVE US FROM OUR SINS.

Yeah, I can just visualize Pilate getting together with Caiaphas and contemplating: “hmmm, should we execute this prophet? or not… maybe we should not, but wait, if we do not crucify him, how shall the rest of humanity be saved from their sins…?” Yeah, right, sounds very probable.

And the utter cynicism of claiming the Church would ‘crucify Him again’ is breathtakingly offensive to Christians. . .though I’m sure you didn’t mean it to be. You might even think you’re right. . .but you aren’t, even if you go point by point and ‘demonstrate’ how you reasoned from point A to point B. . .it’s just that along the way, some or all of your points were themselves incorrect.

Well, it was not meant to be “insulting”, only historical. If that history is embarrasing, it is not my problem.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

It all depends. There is no “one size fits all”.

So far, so good.

That does not follow. Suppose there would be a huge medical breakthrough, which would allow people resurrected even if they were killed. All of a sudden murder would become a relatively minor inconvenience, and would cease to be a serious question.

In my opinion he was. He went against the established church of the time. He proclaimed the fraternity of all people, embracing the poor, too. That was an unheard of change from the generally accepted standards. (Too bad he never raised his voice against slavery, or neglected to teach that washing your hands would prevent diseases. We had to wait almost two millenia for Ignaz Semmelweiss to teach us that simple, yet wonderful preventive method. He could have taught us that lice are not the pearls of God… and a few other practical good ideas.)

Yeah, I can just visualize Pilate getting together with Caiaphas and contemplating: “hmmm, should we execute this prophet? or not… maybe we should not, but wait, if we do not crucify him, how shall the rest of humanity be saved from their sins…?” Yeah, right, sounds very probable.

Well, it was not meant to be “insulting”, only historical. If that history is embarrasing, it is not my problem.

Historical? OK, I’ll bite. Care for showing me historical examples of how “The Catholic Church” --and that means not ‘a Borgia Pope’ here or a pedophile priest there or a local council here-- went around, HISTORICALLY, just waiting to ‘recrucify Christ’ because He was a threat to their tradition etc.



I mean, you’re not even claiming this as your OPINION now? You’ve got actual HISTORICAL examples of how “The Catholic Church”. . .the whole enchilada, with various infallible proclamations, etc., has been going around recrucifying Christ. . .
This I have GOTTA see.

“If it still had the power to do so”. . .Oh, wait. You’re accusing us of being the ones who did the original crucifying? Or you’re saying we could have once but don’t any more, because of. . .what exactly?

Like I said, that paragraph was extremely offensive to Catholic Christians. . .and your ‘historicity claim’ that the Church has done this is a pile of. . .well, dreck.

I’m not saying individuals in the Church haven’t been problems. . .heck, I’m one of them. But “The Church” is the Bride of Christ. She could no more crucify or deny Him than HE would crucify or deny HER.

I fear you have a deep-seated misunderstanding of what the Church is, because She is more than the sum of her parts (each individual Christian).

I mean, we’re still the only MAJOR Christian Church which still upholds the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, for example. You might --heck, you WILL–find individual Catholics who contracept or who argue for abortions in certain circumstances, for ‘other people’. . .but you will NEVER find that the moral teachings of the Catholic FAITH on that subject will change.

As I believe Archbishop Sheen once said, “The truth is still the truth even if nobody believes it; and a lie is still a lie even if everybody thinks it’s true.”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

OTOH, Spock, kudos to you. At first I was confused by your passage into thinking you were quoting me --I’m notorious for bringing up Ignaz Semmelweiss, God bless him.

Of course, Jesus was concerned for our immortal soul. Heaven knows, Jewish people with their ritual handwashings and cleansing traditions were pretty ‘modern’, and if my history serves me, ancient Crete had flush toilets and the Roman aqueducts were a marvel of sanitary engineering, so it’s not like Israel in 4 B.C. was the grimy horror people imagine it. . .

 

[ahs]

I mean, we’re still the only MAJOR Christian Church which still upholds the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death, for example. You might --heck, you WILL–find individual Catholics who contracept or who argue for abortions in certain circumstances, for ‘other people’. . .but you will NEVER find that the moral teachings of the Catholic FAITH on that subject will change.

As I believe Archbishop Sheen once said, “The truth is still the truth even if nobody believes it; and a lie is still a lie even if everybody thinks it’s true.”

Yes, this is what I am honing in on. Truth is unchanging, because God is Truth and God is unchanging. The teachings of the Church are as valid today as they were nearly 2000 years ago. And Catholics, who have been Baptized in the Church and profess this Faith, must assent to the Doctrines of the Church, the unchanging teachings of the Faith, because those teachings are what lead us to a Life with Christ. And rejecting even one of those that requires our assent will lead us away from Christ by virtue of the fact that you cannot accept only part of Christ without accepting the Whole.

 

[Benadam]

You cannot possibly “know” that. They believe - honestly! - that they are right and you are wrong. And here comes the interesting problem, which I already asked many times: "if there is a dissenting opinion concerning the supernatural, what is the epistemology to separate the true and false statements?. (As a matter of fact there is an ongoing thread on the Philosophy forum about this very problem. Needless to say so far there was no real answer.)

 

[razredge]

I disagree that we have to accept everything the Church teaches when it goes against reason or science.

 

[Debora123]

I disagree that we have to accept everything the Church teaches when it goes against reason or science.

Well then you are one of the lowly “so called Catholics” this whole thread is about.

Really makes ya feel good, doesn’t it?

 

[razredge]

Well then you are one of the lowly “so called Catholics” this whole thread is about.

Really makes ya feel good, doesn’t it?

Well, considering how many Catholics I know who really have no idea why they believe what they believe (other than the Church says X is true, so it must be true) I’d rather be a dissenter (with good reasons for doing so) rather than simply ignorant.

And anyway I may be a ‘dissenter’ or ‘heretic’ now, but in 50-100 years who knows - I may just be ahead of the curve , like Galileo

 

[joshrp]

I see so often, even on this forum, people who say they are Catholic, yet reject Church teaching as though their opinion somehow overrides Church teaching. I’ve seen this happen with the teaching on Hell (whether or not is exists), the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, contraceptives, witness to Truth, etc…

But most prevalent among these are those who dissent from the Church’s teaching on contraception. I hear about how the teaching makes no sense to a person, so they reject it. Somehow they come to the conclusion that because that teaching does not make sense to them, or if it does not fit into their desired lifestyle, that they can just dismiss it entirely or make it fit into their personal view as they pick and choose what they do and don’t like.

This has me worried for a great many Catholics. Statistics show that 90% or more of Catholics use artificial birth control/contraception (condoms, the pill, onanism, or any number of barrier methods, etc…). Yet, contraception is clearly and explicitly condemned in Church Doctrine. The illicitness of contraception is a matter of Doctrine that demands our assent, regardless of whether we agree or understand.

Any number of those Catholics will claim they are in union with the Church and assent to Her Authority…“except for 1 or 2 things, which isn’t a big deal” so they claim. What’s worse, is some even go so far as to obstinately oppose the teaching publicly, at the risk of causing scandal. Well, it IS a big deal, indeed.

For starters, people of such mind are in violation of Code of Cannon Law:

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

Can. 227 The lay Christian faithful have the right to have recognized that freedom which all citizens have in the affairs of the earthly city. When using that same freedom, however, they are to take care that their actions are imbued with the spirit of the gospel and are to heed the doctrine set forth by the magisterium of the Church. In matters of opinion, moreover, they are to avoid setting forth their own opinion as the doctrine of the Church.

Some will argue that the Church teaching on contraception is a fallible one, and erroneous at that. Not so, according to Blessed Pope John Paul II. From his Apostolic Constitution, Fidei Depositum in reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
The Doctrinal Value of the Text
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved June 25th last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the Kingdom!

The approval and publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church represent a service which the Successor of Peter wishes to offer to the Holy Catholic Church, to all the particular Churches in peace and communion with the Apostolic See: the service, that is, of supporting and confirming the faith of all the Lord Jesus’ disciples (cf. Lk 22:32), as well as of strengthening the bonds of unity in the same apostolic faith.

Therefore, I ask all the Church’s Pastors and the Christian faithful to receive this catechism in a spirit of communion and to use it assiduously in fulfilling their mission of proclaiming the faith and calling people to the Gospel life. This catechism is given to them that it may be a sure and authentic reference text for teaching catholic doctrine and particularly for preparing local catechisms. It is also offered to all the faithful who wish to deepen their knowledge of the unfathomable riches of salvation (cf. Eph 3:8). It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, lastly, is offered to every individual who asks us to give an account of the hope that is in us (cf. 1 Pet 3:15) and who wants to know what the Catholic Church believes.
(emphasis mine)

Honestly, people like you make us better Catholics. You are an honest intelligent person who knows more about Catholic doctrine than most of us do. I haven’t read your whole post, but I will get back to it when I can. I’ve been up all night and I am tired. But keep struggling with this and you will figure it out. You came to the right place.

 

[Abu]

Dissent is illicit.
There has never been, and is no, “licit dissent” as Pope John Paul II has confirmed: “It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

Sections 25-31 covers “not irreformable” teaching even for theologians in the Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian, (Donum Veritatis) [DV] 1990, for those who “feel” that they cannot give “intellectual assent,” they have “the duty to remain open to a deeper examination of the question.” (31).

*Donum Veritatis *completely rules out all dissent:
“32. The Magisterium has drawn attention several times to the serious harm done to the community of the Church by attitudes of general opposition to Church teaching which even come to expression in organized groups. In his apostolic exhortation Paterna cum benevolentia [1974], Paul VI offered a diagnosis of this problem which is still apropos. In particular, he addresses here that public opposition to the Magisterium of the Church also called “dissent”, which must be distinguished from the situation of personal difficulties treated above. The phenomenon of dissent can have diverse forms. Its remote and proximate causes are multiple.”
#36. “The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.”