Catholics who openly dissent from Church Teaching

[Pfaffenhoffen]

It’s one thing to sin and still follow the Teachings the Church, it’s another thing to sin and not follow the Teachings of the Church. This is what is the difference.

And even us sinning does not excuse us from following All the teachings of the Church.
God bless.*

Yes, I would agree with your distinction. But I said the same here:

Others try to bend the law, saying the law is bad, it is me who is good.

 

[formerlysure]

I admit it - I’m among those who consider myself Catholic who also differs with the Church on some teachings. How can I reconcile the two? Frankly, I haven’t been able to yet - it’s a struggle. Faith has never been a fait accompli for me, it’s always been a process, a yearning, a journey, a struggle. For those who have simply recieved their faith and accepted it unquestioningly, I would just say, God bless you - what a tremendous gift to recieve!

Some things just don’t make logical sense to me. For example, NFP is a form of birth control that prevents conception, so the arguments against barrier methods such as condoms within a committed marriage, makes little sense to me. Some of the rules of sex within a marriage when conception isn’t even possible, such as when the couple are elderly or one is infertile, seem also to defy common sense.

And when many branches of Catholicism which report to Rome permit married men to become priests, the requirement of celibacy begins to wear a bit thin. The ordination of married Episcopalians and Lutherans who bring their families and spouses into the priesthood wears it thinner still. If it’s absolutely necessary that a priest be celibate, let it be so for all. We tell our Western priests, “don’t want to be celibate - too bad…we all have our crosses to bear”. Perhaps the cross for these priests of other faiths is that they simply aren’t eligible to be Roman Catholic priests.

And the sex scandals - the appalling behavior of many religious men of the highest authority - also makes very clear that we must never simply turn a blind eye and park our brains at the door. We must question, debate, discuss. Our faith has lasted thousands of years and can take enlightened discourse without becoming weaker for it. We are thinking beings, and we must have such discourse in order to become faithful.

I’ve never met a perfect Catholic and do not claim to be one. We should welcome those who question aspects of our faith, whether other Catholics or not, and our teachings and doctrine should stand up to the questioning if we are correct.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We should welcome those who question aspects of our faith, whether other Catholics or not, and our teachings and doctrine should stand up to the questioning if we are correct.

Formerlysure, thank you for your candid response. I would like to draw you out on your precise meaning of the quote above. The key phrase here is “question aspects of our faith.” That can mean lots of things, some which should not raise any cause for alarm (representing the kind of “journey” to which your refer), other meanings of which are troublesome if the “questioning” translates to practical opposition (behavior), and further troublesome still if the “questioning” equates to verbal proclamations of what is and is not acceptable moral behavior in the undeniable collection of teachings from the Magisterium.

Lots of inquirers to the Faith read this forum, more than we will ever know. Some of these inquirers eventually announce themselves and join CAF publicly in their inquiry, others probably never do. It is confusing and scandal-causing, to say the least, when members post random individual opinions, and call those opinions acceptably Catholic – if those opinions or private interpretations are in direct opposition to key (not tangential or ‘disciplinary’) issues, such as the comprehensive reach of the Commandments, such as the integrated teaching on sexuality, reproduction, and family, such as the Catholic approach to Sacred Scripture, such as sacramental theology and practice, etc.

This is not some imaginary theory on my part. I have been on this forum less than 3 years. In that short period of time I have read post after post from inquirers who have stated such confusion and dismay, regarding getting straight answers to straight questions. You and I could maybe discuss whether they should seek a discussion forum for such authoritative answers, or whether they should seek an unambiguous, objective source, but the fact is, that they do seek out the discussion area in particular. Roman Catholicism, as you know, is not a religion of collective, fluid, individual opinion; that’s how we differ from many Protestant sects. Those who have articulated the body of her doctrine have studied for many years, usually including in Rome, and most often are multi-degreed. When cavalier, non-doctrinal “answers” intrude into a serious discussion about theology, a discussion initiated by an inquirer to the faith, two things happen:

(1) The OP becomes confused and is unable to sort out on his or her own whose “answer” is correct;
(2) Heated disputes arise among those who do have a solid handle on approved doctrine, versus those offering unsolicited opinion; those disputes themselves further discourage the OP, often, from inquiriing.

Clearly this does not happen in all cases. Some have persisted through the confusion and rancor, and are going to become Catholic or have done so. But it has happened much more often than would benefit evangelization. (I include here those considering reverting, as well as converting.)

I think it’s fine to struggle. Gosh, who doesn’t? (I agree with you there; surely we ‘strugglers’ are in the majority. ) But I hope for myself I have never represented publicly here that doctrine is different than what it is – that some doctrine may be dispensed with for personal reasons, that some doctrine is of no consequence or subject to rejection based on rational disputation, etc. It is a very different thing to say, “I cannot accept this doctrine at this time, but I recognize that we are instructed to conform to it,” versus… “I don’t care what anybody says, I’m doing thus and so, and nobody can say that my practice, and/or my belief about such doctrine, is not Catholic.”

(Yes, actually, Rome can say it, and has said it.) Rome does not say that you lose your birthright as a Catholic for doing so; you are still a member of the Church, no matter how or what you practice, but it doesn’t make you an authentic witness of your faith to be practicing dissent, let alone to be directly or indirectly encouraging others to do the same.

I also think, as LittleOne said in post #2, that getting clarification about a doctrine which confuses, and/or asking for the basis of the theology, is different from “dissent.”

Does that make sense to you? Can you agree that it would profit efforts toward catechesis, evangelization, and internal Church unity, if people would exercise responsibility and restraint about voicing an opinion and calling it doctrine? Perhaps lots of problems could be avoided if people were clear about what they were intending to communicate by answering their own or someone else’s theological question provocatively.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

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.

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”.

Um, first things first. Chill off Ma’am, lady, sister. . .not buddy. I’m a woman.

So, ‘love’ is something . . .we’re talking between man and woman, erotic, sexual love–is something which has ‘unwanted side effect of pregnancy’?

Wow.

And if one is not prepared to offer the potential offspring the proverbial life of Riley, the answer is not to remain chaste, but to just ‘contracept’.

How utterly selfish. . .and wrapped in the guise of being so ‘thoughtful’.

Well, Spock my man. . .I was 16 when Roe went into effect across the land and all the people rejoiced because there’d be no more unwanted pregnancies and every child would be cared for, because by God we had The Great Society, we had all kinds of safeguards and care built in, and now even if our pills failed we had abortion to ‘deal with the unwanted side effect of pregnancy’… . and we made SURE all this information AND all the ‘tools’ were totally available, no questions asked, to the young woman (especially the poor and the ‘colored’) who we were going to save from a lifetime of slavery to those ‘unwanted side effects.’

I’m 55 today, dear Spock. It’s been nearly 40 years, a generation and more. What Roe promised is FAR from what was actually delivered. A generation torn by divorce. . .more single mothers left by uncaring fathers; more ‘educated, affluent, and MARRIED women actually contracepting than the so-called ‘poor’ over time. . .more violence against women and children, more unwanted and neglected children, more misery with all these putative ‘wanted’ children than my parents and grandparents, who lived through stinkin’ depressions and wars and persecutions for God’s sake ever DREAMED of.

I’m NOT saying that Roe was the ‘only’ thing which caused many societal ills so don’t try to build that strawman. I am saying that it is however one of the foundation stones, one of many, yet one which affects all people, black, white, rich, poor, male or female, young or old.

And as a mother, I get physically ILL at the thought of any woman (or man) trying to justify ending the life of a baby because, "It’s really not human yet’, “It’s too much for me to handle”, “I can’t give it the life it deserves”. . .when what deep down they’re all saying is, “I am more important than this child and MY LIFE as I WANT IT TO BE is more important than the life of this child.”

Spock, I’ll bet that you’re rather disgusted by the idea of ‘civilized society’ entertaining the death penalty because humanity should be above that kind of thing–and this, mind you, is for those guilty of horrific crimes. . .

But you don’t seem to be a bit upset at children being butchered and wiped out of existence **when they have done absolutely no wrong. . **

 

[Abu]

Formerlysure, #118
NFP is a form of birth control that prevents conception, so the arguments against barrier methods such as condoms within a committed marriage, makes little sense to me. Some of the rules of sex within a marriage when conception isn’t even possible, such as when the couple are elderly or one is infertile, seem also to defy common sense.

Then learn the facts. NBR involves merely abstaining so there is no contraception. If misused – without serious reasons, then guilt is involved.

And when many branches of Catholicism which report to Rome permit married men to become priests, the requirement of celibacy begins to wear a bit thin.

Celibacy is the norm from the Apostles – it is a discipline, and exceptions are allowed for good reason. The spate of prejudices, opinions, feelings, views and desires expressed here are legion, and indicate the poor formation in the faith that is so rampant these days.

The immense failure to understand what Christ gave us in His Bride the Church is at the root of the problems displayed as Jesus the Christ gave four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

What does this mean for assent to truths of faith and morals?
*Pastor Aeternus *has the dogma of Vatican I on papal infallibility and you can find it at:
ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#6
Chapter 3.
On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff9
Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

 

[Materimatater]

I’m glad to be in good company of being an imperfect Catholic. But I would have to say that, in my experience, that our teachings do stand up to questioning. God is so good that he has made the truth available to us all…to those who have ears to hear. But it isn’t easy and sometimes makes no sence to us were we are. Just think of poor Peter in Mat 16, God just revieled to him the truth ( he had to be feeling pretty confident ) and then our good foundation gets it wrong ON HIS OWN and then gets a " get behind me Satan " from the son of God ( not feeling so good now) Do we really think that we can just know the truth of what is right all by ourselves? Question if you will, but I prefere the much shorter and possibly narrower path of obedience. ( when I’m not screwing it up.)*

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I had mentioned, in an earlier post, my feeling (emotional, yes) of illness when women (or men) selfishly aborted a child based on the premise that their life ‘the way they wanted it to be’ mattered more than a child’s life.

Of course, there are many cases where women (or men) go into abortion truly believing they are doing the right thing. They may be wrong, but they are not doing this for a selfish reason.

And there are many cases where a woman, especially, is FORCED into abortion by threats, verbal and physical abuse, and truly believes she has no choice, even though if she COULD she would want the child. This also is not a selfish case.

I have great sympathy for those who are (tragically) misguided but sincere in their efforts, as well as great sympathy for those who are in physical and emotional and even spiritual danger and are forced into actions they abhor.

But my sympathy (and I even feel sympathy, believe it or not, for the selfish, because they ARE wrong, because they will suffer, not because I’m wishing ill on them or delight in their ‘probable destination’ --as I emphatically do NO SUCH THING) doesn’t ‘cancel out’ a death that should not have happened. I can be sympathetic, IOW, but not to the point that I can ‘change’ morality and say that because somebody ‘suffered’ then the abortion was somehow ‘justified’. Because it isn’t. Not because I say so. Not because society says so. Society is often at ‘odds’ with its members, after all. Because God has said so. . .the same God though who offers His forgiveness for the most unspeakable of crimes if the person truly repents, and so we His children MUST likewise do the same. If any person repents of an evil, not only does God forgive when asked, WE forgive as well. No grudge holders, no ‘hell damning narrow-minded bigots’ are we. . .we have placed NO ONE in hell, not even Judas or Hitler. We don’t go around saying that a person who repents an ‘unspeakable crime’ as judged by ‘society’ can NEVER BE FORGIVEN.

Yet so often WE are the ones portrayed as the hectoring judgmental "Pharisees’ by the (no doubt subconsciously projecting) people who, it becomes all too clear, are the ones who are truly setting themselves up as judge and jury. “Tolerance” to all. . .all who toe the party line of the ‘enlightened’ --is a charge thrown at us Catholics when it is the modernist ‘free thinker’ who is actually the one who is truly parroting a party line and ready to throw under the bus all who do not agree. Oh, IMO of course.

 

[fred_conty]

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.

Hi,
So the two types of catholics are those that have great faith in the church, and those
that have little faith in the church.

It sounds right except that it may go back even further, to Jesus himself who made Peter
the rock of his church. Maybe some are solid that Jesus our saviour is truely God himself. This would explain why some know his real presence in his real appointed church. And Jesus said to Peter, “but who do you say that I am?” Maybe that is the question of questions to be answered before any other question can be answered. Just “WHO do you say I am?” Just “who do YOU say I am?” Just “who DO you say I am?”

 

[fred_conty]

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.

Hi Spock,
Contraceptives are intrinsically evil because the marital act is for the purpose of having children and against “be fruitfull and multiply”. “He created them male and female.” It is a frustration of the intentions of our Creator who has given us his instructions.

To understand this a person must believe in the Bible or Jesus’ church. I’m not quite sure
of your beliefs since you said “none”. If you do not believe in the bible, then of course the explaination will mean nothing. But nonetheless, that is what it is for believers.

Have a pleasant evening.