Catholics who openly dissent from Church Teaching

[ahs]

Haha the rule book wouldn’t be necessary if someone understood the reasoning behind it. The “rule book” is there so that we aren’t lost while we are struggling to understand all the reasoning. As Paul says the goal is for all of us to have mature faith, which implies not mindlessly following guidelines but rather achieving a point where we are able to understand the greater depths of scripture and gain insight in to God’s plan.

Yes, and this also ties into this:

As Christians…as Catholics we profess our Catholic Faith.

We assent to the various teachings of the Catholic Church (with the assent fitting the kind of teaching…for example some things are the assent of Faith some things require the religious submission of intellect and will …).

Can there be times where perhaps a person may not understand something…or have difficulties that arise in understanding? Yes of course. The approach then to take is “Faith seeking understanding”…

As St. Augustine put it: “I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe.”

…Who knows why they don’t just move on to that other religion, especially if they believe it’s more truthful than their own. But then, that would mean they’d be identifying with a religion differen than their family and friends…

I didn’t take Good Daughter’s question, “why they would still consider themselves to be in full communion with Her” to be a suggestion that they should switch religions. I took that to be more of a “if you know you are not in full communion with the Church, then just admit to being a Catholic who is not in full communion with the Church”.

My personal thoughts on that are: our proper course as Catholics when we do not understand a teaching, to the point that we might be tempted to dissent from it, is “…Faith seeking understanding…” and “I assent to what the Chruch has revealed as Truth, despite my lack of understanding, and I pray for the grace of understanding it as I actively seek to further my undersanding of Truth.”

 

[Nate13]

Hi,
Is that 98% of Catholics? That sounds very skewed since the children and the old
would be more than 2% of the Catholic population.

@Fred
this stat has already been shown to be a mess because as I pointed out the poll was to ask whether the Catholic had ever used contraception before, not whether they were currently using it. Polls here on CAF have showed that Catholics currently using contraception are in the vast minority. Of course this is CAF but it still shows that poll is bogus. Take polls with a grain of salt until you are able to see the question that was actually asked and how ambiguous the question was. People love to do polls about abortion like this to.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Contraception is not “killing” them “baybees”. Emotionalism will not earn you brownie points.

You mean that there are absolutely NO contraceptives which can and do have abortifacient effects?

Or are zygotes, for example, not ‘human’ but only ‘potential’ up to some shifting and relative ‘point’ when they then become '‘real’ humans?

 

[ahs]

Hi,
Is that 98% of Catholics? That sounds very skewed since the children and the old
would be more than 2% of the Catholic population.

Nate has ansered this. Something to keep in mind also, it that when polls report something, they are reporting on the poeple who participated in the poll. A more accurate poll will tell you, reagrding any particular poll “90% of Catholic women who are married…” or “50% of Catholic males over the age of 40”, etc…

And while the nubmers of that particular poll are skewed, it must still be recognized that a large number of Catholics DO indeed contracept, despite the fact that contraception is still grave matter, and intrinsic evil.

And when Catholics are aware of this teaching, this Doctrine of the Faith, and still dissent from it, publically no less, it makes for a dangerous situation of scandal to those who are ignorant of the Truth or are weak in their Faith.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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

You are of course aware that some things Gallileo claimed as scientific truth. . .had elements which turned out to be WRONG. You’re aware of that, right>

 

[Rence]

I didn’t take Good Daughter’s question, “why they would still consider themselves to be in full communion with Her” to be a suggestion that they should switch religions. I took that to be more of a “if you know you are not in full communion with the Church, then just admit to being a Catholic who is not in full communion with the Church”.

Oh, I see. Perhaps because they don’t consider themselves not to be “in full communion with the Church”. Really, do people know they have to make that distinction? Do people know that they have to accept all that the Church teaches or they’re not in communion with the Church? In general I mean. Not on this forum. This forum is only a small percentage of Catholics as a whole, and they’re exposed to numerous references and documents.

But when you’re in an appropriate environment to ask someone’s religion, do they say “I’m Catholic” or do they say, “I’m Catholic but I’m not in full commuion with the Church”. I’ve heard, “I’m Catholic but I don’t practice” a lot though. I’m asking because I don’t know. I don’t usually ask what someone’s religion is. And I don’t ask those who I know who identify as Catholics “how Catholic are you”?

My personal thoughts on that are: our proper course as Catholics when we do not understand a teaching, to the point that we might be tempted to dissent from it, is “…Faith seeking understanding…”

Yeah, I would think they would do that too. I’ve done it myself on numerous occasions. My favorite method is picking up the phone and asking our family priest though

and “I assent to what the Chruch has revealed as Truth, despite my lack of understanding, and I pray for the grace of understanding it as I actively seek to further my undersanding of Truth.”

That goes back to the faith factor in the equation. I’m thinking that those who have more faith in the Church are more likely to do that. While those who aren’t as confident in the Church may not do so that easily.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

The teaching office

888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task “to preach the Gospel of God to all men,” in keeping with the Lord’s command.415 They are “heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers” of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a “supernatural sense of faith” the People of God, under the guidance of the Church’s living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals… the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

 

[ahs]

Oh, I see. Perhaps because they don’t consider themselves not to be “in full communion with the Church”. Really, do people know they have to make that distinction? Do people know that they have to accept all that the Church teaches or they’re not in communion with the Church?

That’s a really good question. If they are not aware, isn’t it our duty as Catholics who DO know, to reach out to them and tell them this?
(see CCC 1912-1914 on Responsibilities in Society, 2238 on Duties of Citizens, 2465-2473 on Living in & Bearing Witness to Truth and also CCC 900 – Duty of Laity; 904 – 905 – Participation in Christ’s Prophetic Office; 1829 – Fraternal Correction as part of Charity; 1868 – 1869 – Shared responsibility for the sins of others).

 

[Wardog]

Awesome! Where does that statistics come from? I would love to see it.

All you have to do is to look at the families in your Church on Sundays. It is unlikely that all of them are following NFP; if there are only 1-2 children in middle school or older, they are probably using some sort of artificial birth control.
Here is an idea: if you feel strongly that you should correct any Catholic who is straying from the Church doctrine, next Sunday go up to each of these parents with only 1 or 2 children in middle school or older, and ask them if they are following NFP. Correct them if they tell you it is not any of your business, because you are there to save their souls. Tell them they will not go to Heaven unless they repent and promise to only use NFP. That is your duty, as so many of you tell us on these threads.
Please let me know when you plan to do this, as I would like to be there and watch.

 

[Rence]

That’s a really good question. If they are not aware, isn’t it our duty as Catholics who DO know, to reach out to them and tell them this?
(see CCC 1912-1914 on Responsibilities in Society, 2238 on Duties of Citizens, 2465-2473 on Living in & Bearing Witness to Truth and also CCC 900 – Duty of Laity; 904 – 905 – Participation in Christ’s Prophetic Office; 1829 – Fraternal Correction as part of Charity; 1868 – 1869 – Shared responsibility for the sins of others).

Yes if you have the opportunity to, if you are in the right environment, and if they are receptive.

 

[ahs]

All you have to do is to look at the families in your Church on Sundays. It is unlikely that all of them are following NFP; if there are only 1-2 children in middle school or older, they are probably using some sort of artificial birth control.
Here is an idea: if you feel strongly that you should correct any Catholic who is straying from the Church doctrine, next Sunday go up to each of these parents with only 1 or 2 children in middle school or older, and ask them if they are following NFP. Correct them if they tell you it is not any of your business, because you are there to save their souls. Tell them they will not go to Heaven unless they repent and promise to only use NFP. **That is your duty, as so many of you tell us on these threads.**Please let me know when you plan to do this, as I would like to be there and watch.

You cannot preseume that someone is sinning. That is unjust judgement. If someone tells you that they are using artificial birth control, that is when you can correct them. If you see a family with 1 or 2 older children, it is not proper to assume that they have no just reason for not having more children or that they are using some form of birth control.

I do not recall anything of this sort being promoted on this forum. You are missing some important points and ignoring some major details.

 

[Rence]

All you have to do is to look at the families in your Church on Sundays. It is unlikely that all of them are following NFP; if there are only 1-2 children in middle school or older, they are probably using some sort of artificial birth control.
Here is an idea: if you feel strongly that you should correct any Catholic who is straying from the Church doctrine, next Sunday go up to each of these parents with only 1 or 2 children in middle school or older, and ask them if they are following NFP. Correct them if they tell you it is not any of your business, because you are there to save their souls. Tell them they will not go to Heaven unless they repent and promise to only use NFP. That is your duty, as so many of you tell us on these threads.
Please let me know when you plan to do this, as I would like to be there and watch.

There’s that too While one should always answer their quesitons, most people are not receptive to someone being in their business.

 

[fred_conty]

Just as a point to ponder:

Suppose that you have those who ‘think for themselves’. . .and decide that blacks are inferior, that women are inferior, that Jews should be exterminated. . .etc. etc.

You think that thinking for yourself is so wonderful --but is it when the thinking is clearly morally wrong?

And since there are clear moral wrongs, doesn’t that posit that there is some source of Truth? Truth that doesn’t change according to the person, the society, the ‘situations’, or the ‘times’, but unchanging everlasting truth?

Why oh WHY are there plaudits for those who in ‘thinking for themselves’ dissent from truth, as though only the THINKING PROCESS is worthwhile, no matter whether the person ultimately judges truly or falsely?

Tell you what, I think for MYSELF and I find that I want to believe the TRUTH and (again thinking for myself) I find this truth in the Catholic Church and its teachings. . .

But because (on sober exploration and intellectual questioning) I am actually ASSENTING to something rather than DISSENTING, many (not all, but many) will claim that I’m not ‘thinking for myself’ at all. . .

Ironic, is it not?

Hi Tantum,
Nicely put. We need guidance from the source of truth to be winners.

 

[fred_conty]

This thread is intended bring awareness to those Catholics who profess the Catholic Faith, yet place their own desires, thoughts, opinions, or feelings, etc… above those of the Church.

The reason this is important is because the Church has it’s desires, thoughts, teachings, etc… from Christ Himself. The things that the Church teaches are intended to bring us toward Christ, toward salvation. When we reject one of those teachings, we are rejecting an aspect of salvation. (I’m talking about Doctrine, Dogmas of the Faith. )

There are many who know full well, and have studied in depth certain Doctrines (such as contraception…that being the most prevalent issue that I have seen in my life) yet still reject it for any number of reasons. They know the Church says it is grave matter, they know the Canon requires their assent to this Doctrine, they know the Catechism has been handed to us by the Pope as a work containing Doctrines to which Catholics must give assent, yet they persist in their rejection of the teaching.

There are others who may not even know that its a sin. Yet the Church is clear that every Catholic has an obligation to seek Truth and know the Faith which they profess.

Things get further complicated when those who didn’t know run across a statement on a public forum by a Catholic that suggests to them that contraceptionis okay, is a matter for personal discernment. That now places them is a potential spot of accepting that statement as truth without further questioning it. Then it potentially becomes scandal.

These are serious matters because we are talking about the difference between committing grave sin or not. And grave sin is not so very far from becoming a mortal sin. My concern is genuine. I have the deepest love for my brothers and sisters in Christ and it pains me to see a teaching of the Church being rejected outright. And it’s not just that a teaching is being rejected, dissented from; it’s the fact that that teaching is meant to keep us from possible damnation, and it is being dismissed at the possible detriment of souls.

Well said!

 

[Spock]

You mean that there are absolutely NO contraceptives which can and do have abortifacient effects?

I am talking about the concept, not the particulars. A condom, for example has no abortifacient side effects. The Church declares the idea of contraception as intrinsically evil, reagrdless of the abortifacient side effect, if any. I am sure you know that.

 

[Spock]

All you have to do is to look at the families in your Church on Sundays. It is unlikely that all of them are following NFP; if there are only 1-2 children in middle school or older, they are probably using some sort of artificial birth control.
Here is an idea: if you feel strongly that you should correct any Catholic who is straying from the Church doctrine, next Sunday go up to each of these parents with only 1 or 2 children in middle school or older, and ask them if they are following NFP. Correct them if they tell you it is not any of your business, because you are there to save their souls. Tell them they will not go to Heaven unless they repent and promise to only use NFP. That is your duty, as so many of you tell us on these threads.
Please let me know when you plan to do this, as I would like to be there and watch.

My dear friend. I am not Catholic, nor a Christian of another flavor, or a believer of any other kind. I am that abomination you have been warned about. I am astonished that so many Catholics “stray” from the official party line, but that astonishment is not filled with “sorrow”… on the very contrary.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I am talking about the concept, not the particulars. A condom, for example has no abortifacient side effects. The Church declares the idea of contraception as intrinsically evil, reagrdless of the abortifacient side effect, if any. I am sure you know that.

Ah, but you said ‘contraception does not kill babies’. That’s what I was addressing.

And of course contraception (which is something totally different from family planning, periodic continence, etc.) is intrinsically evil, because it attempts to artificially REMOVE one aspect of sexual relations. Sex is both uniative and procreative by nature. Attempting to artificially remove either is morally wrong.

 

[fred_conty]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong (and with backup references) but Jesus’ death was predestined and was the Will of God. God sent Jesus, His Only Son, to fulfull his Plan. Everything Jesus did was in accordance to His Father’s Plan. Remember, he is wholly human, but he is wholly Divine as well. Predestination doesn’t apply to him because He is God. He was working His plan.

Again, someone correct me if I’m wrong (and with backup references) but I was always taught that yes, the Roman and Jewish authorities, and Judas, had free will. They were not puppets on a string. However, because God is omniscient, he knew their decisions, before they did, and used them as tools to fulfull his Will. Just because God knew everything before it was going to happen, didn’t change their free will. In other words, everything they did, was allowed by God to fulfill His Plan. He sent Jesus to earth in human form with one goal, and one goal only, to save us from our sins. The intentions of the Roman and Jewish authorities doesn’t change this. Their intentions and God’s plan can be different, without changing the outcome or without changing the fulfillment of His Plan.

Hi Rence,
God used the Romans and the Jews to be instruments in bringing about the
the salvation of the world, by crucifying Jesus. They were pawns or tools.
Jesus is the Lamb placed on the altar of the Cross for the redemption of the whole world.
Jesus said to Pilot that if he so desired, he could have called legions of angels to stop
this whole ordeal. It was the will of God to let the evil happen to bring us home and fulfill the promise made to Adam.

 

[Spock]

Ah, but you said ‘contraception does not kill babies’. That’s what I was addressing.

And it does not. Some forms of contraceptions are more intrusive than others and might have side effects, but I was talking about the concept of it.

And of course contraception (which is something totally different from family planning, periodic continence, etc.) is intrinsically evil, because it attempts to artificially REMOVE one aspect of sexual relations. Sex is both uniative and procreative by nature. Attempting to artificially remove either is morally wrong.

Only according to you, and those millions, who agree with you. And then there are all those other millions (Many Catholics among them as it turnes out) who disagree with you. Food is both nutritional and a source of pleasure. Do you declare the attempt to remove the nutritional part as “intrinsically evil” and “morally wrong”? If you are consistent with your beliefs, you should do that. Why single out sex? What is this sick obsession with sex (especially other people’s sex life)? It reminds me of the definition of the Puritanism: “Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere might have fun”.

Chill off, buddy. Those people want to express their LOVE toward each other without the unwanted side effect of pregnancy. And people do not always want pregnancy. Life would be so much better, if all the pregnancies would be filled with joy and loving expectations, when the coming new baby is assured of a loving family, which can also afford to gaive that new kid a proper upbringing. And the alternative is not abstinence. Another favorite saying of mine: “Of all the sexual perversions, the most unnatural one is chastity”.

 

[ahs]

Why single out sex? What is this sick obsession with sex (especially other people’s sex life)?

It’s not an obseesion with sex. It is a concern for salvation of souls, and there happens to be a coincindence (or not) that the most common offenses against God are sexual in nature.

Chill off, buddy. Those people want to express their LOVE toward each other without the unwanted side effect of pregnancy. And people do not always want pregnancy.

Procreation/bearing children (pregnancy) is part of marriage. Marriage is for this purpose, to be fruitful and multiply. Not every person is called to marriage, so not every person must live with this “unwanted side effect of pregnancy” as you put it. There are MANY ways that people, singles and couples, can express their love for one another wihtout sex. Why do you say that expressing love must carry the potential burden of this “unwanted side effect of pregnancy”? It seems to me that YOU perhaps are obessed with sex, that you do not see the value of love being expressed in ways other than sex.