Church Teaching

  • Thread starter Thread starter Churchman25
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Churchman25

Guest
Why is it that anyone who publically speaks out against the church on church teach, pretty much goes to the chopping block with an excommunication? I just dont get it why the Church does not allow freedom of speech when comes to church teaching. If the Church is trying to come up with some new teaching why can’t people be allowed to try and speak out against it. So the Church can prove that it is right.
 
Churchman25 said:
Why is it that anyone who publically speaks out against the church on church teach, pretty much goes to the chopping block with an excommunication?
Click to expand...
Can you provide us with an example of this? 🙂

I think what you say could be a caricature of how things worked during something like the Middle Ages. But today? Seriously? 😛
 
What i meant was that a heretic is someone who speaks out against church teaching. So why are we never allowed to speak our minds publically if we dont agree on something that the church teaches.

As for the chopping block statement that was completely not literal obviously the the church is not going to kill someone for commiting a heresy. They will be excommunicated though.
 
Very few people are excommunicated these days. As I said before, if you try to provide a well-known example of this, I’m not sure you’d come up with much. In fact, folks wish the Church would excommunicate certain individuals, such as pro-abort, “Catholic” politicians, with much more regularity.

Now, a heretic is not someone who “speaks out,” but one who believes something that is contrary to revealed dogmas. The reason they can be excommunicated is that excommunication is medicinal, and is meant to wake a person up out of their stupor. Consciously, willingly, repeatedly, adamantly rejecting revealed truth means that you lack supernatural faith, which in turn implies you are not in a state of grace. This is dangerous, since such a soul will go to hell. Frankly, it’s evil to allow such a person to carry on without any attempt to help them.

Moreover, excommunication is meant to protect others against the errors of an individual, so that they aren’t lead away from the false teachings of someone who is manifestly a wolf amongst sheep.

In terms of not speaking out publicly, the problem is that a Catholic should be respectful of two things:

(1) Their own limitations. Someone who isn’t even educated in theology has no business making pronouncements. Each of us has a state in life, and not everyone is called to teach others. In our day and age, we all of us think we have a right to pontificate on any subject we wish, but this is utter applesauce. We have to have humility, and understand that knowing a lot about something is a complicated piece of work that takes years and years of study.

(2) The authority of the Church, which was established by Christ. No matter the individual intellect of a certain person, they are not able to out-think the collective mind of centuries of Church teaching, even on a natural level. But this is to say nothing of the supernatural level, wherein the Church is preserved from grave error when it makes known what is or is not revealed truth. Frankly, any Catholic who speaks out against the Church’s dogma, knowing full well what they’re doing, is someone who probably lacks supernatural faith, and is very likely, therefore, to be in a state of mortal sin. By their mortal sin, which they are apparently unrepentant of, they have already excommunicated themselves from Christ’s Body, since they reject the friendship of God.
 
I do have to admit that I was wrong when it came to the original heresy the heresy definition that i had stated .

The wrong definition in the post above was not meant to decieve, it was just something I thought it was even though now I know it isnt true.

As for rejecting truth I typically don’t do that, but It may seem that way because I am not a detail oriented person.
 
Churchman25 said:
Why is it that anyone who publically speaks out against the church on church teach, pretty much goes to the chopping block with an excommunication? I just dont get it why the Church does not allow freedom of speech when comes to church teaching. If the Church is trying to come up with some new teaching why can’t people be allowed to try and speak out against it. So the Church can prove that it is right.
Click to expand...
Honestly, you tend to find more people here on CAF complaining about the opposite: that bishops and priests don’t do enough to correct and/or punish those who put forth heresy. 😉

There have been some who are censured (i.e. they are not allowed to teach theology for Catholic institutions), but I can’t think of anyone who has been excommunicated for heretical teaching over the past 50 years.

The censures are more about preserving doctrine rather than punishing free-thinkers. If someone is a Catholic priest or sister or theologian, and they teach something that plainly contradicts Catholic teaching, and they teach it in a Catholic college or seminary, then that is going to confuse the larger population about what exactly the Church teaches.

But people certainly have free speech. The Church doesn’t squash free speech. But the Church will correct those who put forth something as Catholic teaching that is not in fact Catholic teaching. If the Church did not do this, then anyone could say that anything they want is “Catholic teaching” and the Church would be powerless to do anything about it. That would make the Church’s teaching completely subjective and effectively meaningless.

Truly, though, the Church has a high tolerance for goofy theology. She tends to bend over backwards giving theologians the benefit of the doubt before condemning their ideas (and the condemnation is always of ideas, not people).
 
Joe_5859 said:
Truly, though, the Church has a high tolerance for goofy theology. She tends to bend over backwards giving theologians the benefit of the doubt before condemning their ideas (and the condemnation is always of ideas, not people).
Click to expand...
Can you be more precise with what you’re saying here? If a theologian expresses a goofy theological idea, and the Church condemns the idea, what exactly does that mean? Is the goofy theologian not part of the Church? When one theologian (or priest or bishop) condemns another’s theologian’s (or priest’s or bishop’s) idea, how can you tell which one of them is “the Church”? If a third theologian comes along and says the condemnation was faulty or incorrect, is that theologian now “the Church”?
 
Joe_5859 said:
There have been some who are censured (i.e. they are not allowed to teach theology for Catholic institutions), but I can’t think of anyone who has been excommunicated for heretical teaching over the past 50 years.
Click to expand...
Well there were those that Bishop Bruskewitz excommunicated in 1996. It covered people that were members in a range of societies that were seen as antithetical to the unity of the Church. If I remember correctly it was not for heresy per se, but rather under the provisions of canon 1369 which states:
Canon 1369
A person who in a public show or speech, in published writing, or in other uses of the instruments of social communication utters blasphemy, gravely injures good morals, expresses insults, or excites hatred or contempt against religion or the Church is to be punished with a just penalty.
Click to expand...
I believe those excommunications were upheld in 2006.

While “just penalty” is not defined, it looks to be left up to the individual Bishop what penalty is appropriate given the gravity of their crimes. Those who advocate against the morals of the Church or who incite contempt of the Church and clergy could face the same penalty at the discretion of their bishop. I think that Bishop Bruskewitz is unusual in passing this penalty, but that does not mean that members of the Church should feel they can teach and proclaim contrary opinions with impunity.
 
1neophyte said:
Can you be more precise with what you’re saying here? If a theologian expresses a goofy theological idea, and the Church condemns the idea, what exactly does that mean? Is the goofy theologian not part of the Church? When one theologian (or priest or bishop) condemns another’s theologian’s (or priest’s or bishop’s) idea, how can you tell which one of them is “the Church”? If a third theologian comes along and says the condemnation was faulty or incorrect, is that theologian now “the Church”?
Click to expand...
When I speak of “the Church”, I mean the competent ecclesial authority (i.e. the Magisterium). The Magisterium consists of the pope and the bishops together in union with him. So on a particular level, it generally starts with the local bishop, but then also includes places like the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It does not mean just two theologians disagreeing and the rest of us wondering which one speaks for the Church.

Usually, the first step is a request for clarification from the theologian who has said something problematic. That person is given an opportunity to explain to see if they really are contradicting Church teaching or if it only appears so because of their choice of words.

Having one’s theological ideas corrected is not the same as being placed outside the Church. More often, I see specific books singled out rather than individual theologians. My impression is that the Magisterium is particularly concerned nowadays with being precise in their criticism rather than anathematizing individuals. It’s not something that happens lightly (or quickly).
 
Joe_5859 said:
When I speak of “the Church”, I mean the competent ecclesial authority (i.e. the Magisterium). The Magisterium consists of the pope and the bishops together in union with him. So on a particular level, it generally starts with the local bishop, but then also includes places like the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It does not mean just two theologians disagreeing and the rest of us wondering which one speaks for the Church.

Usually, the first step is a request for clarification from the theologian who has said something problematic. That person is given an opportunity to explain to see if they really are contradicting Church teaching or if it only appears so because of their choice of words.

Having one’s theological ideas corrected is not the same as being placed outside the Church. More often, I see specific books singled out rather than individual theologians. My impression is that the Magisterium is particularly concerned nowadays with being precise in their criticism rather than anathematizing individuals. It’s not something that happens lightly (or quickly).
Click to expand...
So hypothetically, if the Pope (the highest ranking member of the Magisteriam?) were to release a document expressing a theological idea that was widely and precisely criticized by other bishops and the sensus fidei, who should be believed?
 
Not if all the bishops disagree…just some of them. If some of the bishops disagree with the Pope, does that mean they’re not part of the teaching authority of the Church? If some bishops are not in communion with the Pope on a given issue or idea, who has the teaching authority?

I’m not trying to be difficult, it’s just that I’ve been looking for an answer to this question for decades, and I’ve found none. It’s not even that I’ve only found bad or dissatisfactory answers. I’ve only found non-answers.
 
I know that now but when I originally wrote the post I thought it was.
 
Just a question for my own clarification. Are we speaking of straight theological ideas concerning the Churchs’ truth about matters such as the Trinity, etc, or the dogma concerning social issues, ie, ABC, LGBTQ issues and divorce?🤷
 
kozlosap said:
Just a question for my own clarification. Are we speaking of straight theological ideas concerning the Churchs’ truth about matters such as the Trinity, etc, or the dogma concerning social issues, ie, ABC, LGBTQ issues and divorce?🤷
Click to expand...
If I am understanding the original poster, they are not just talking about heresy, but rather those that disagree with Church teaching on any number of areas. Heresy, schism, and apostasy are automatic, if rarely founded, but not all excommunications for speaking against the Church falls under those areas. One can be found guilty of harming the moral good and unity of the Church by their bishop also.

If one openly and consistently espouses against the Church’s teaching about ABC, SSM, divorce, etc then they are liable under cannot 1369 to a “just penalty” if their speech endangers good morals as defined by the Church. If their bishop finds that their public avocation for things detrimental to the faith are grievous they can deny communion or even excommunicate them. We are allowed to have our opinions and ask for clarification, but we are not allowed to champion against the Church established by Christ. When we put our own teaching above that of the Church we are usurping the Church’s authority by setting up a shadow magisterium of the laity.
 
Based of of Eichelbaums answer to my original questions it seems like he is stating that someone who is wrong about something, is condemned.

Youl notice that I never rejected the truth but yet he says I did.

In later post I even acknowleged it that I was wrong.
 
Churchman25 said:
Why is it that anyone who publically speaks out against the church on church teach, pretty much goes to the chopping block with an excommunication? I just dont get it why the Church does not allow freedom of speech when comes to church teaching. If the Church is trying to come up with some new teaching why can’t people be allowed to try and speak out against it. So the Church can prove that it is right.
Click to expand...
The Church is not a democracy, it is a monarchy, with Christ on the Throne. If the Church allowed people to teach doctrinal error in its name that could seriously put salvation at risk for many people including the teacher. Excommunication is a warning to knock it off before they get into serious spiritual trouble. It is actually a mercy not a punishment. Freedom of speech in the secular world allows anyone to say anything whether true or not. We see the consequences of unbridled free speech all around us as society decals. The Church must continue hold the line on truth as it has from the beginning with the promise of Christ and the Holy Spirit. It can’t bend with the wind of what is popular and change truth to avoid criticism. The truth never changes. If millions believe a lie, it is still a lie.
 
Thanks for these links.
It appears that this inquisition of LCWR was ended by Pope Francis himself who met for over an hour with the heads of that organization.

**“It’s about as close to an apology, I would think, as the Catholic Church is officially going to render.”**Eileen Burke-Sullivan
 
kozlosap said:
Just a question for my own clarification. Are we speaking of straight theological ideas concerning the Churchs’ truth about matters such as the Trinity, etc, or the dogma concerning social issues, ie, ABC, LGBTQ issues and divorce?🤷
Click to expand...
It’s all the same. The Church’s teaching on “social issues” are rooted in theological ideas concerning the truth about what marriage is, who God is, who we are, etc. The truth about the Trinity, for example, is very closely tied to the Church’s teaching about what marriage is. There isn’t a separate “social issues” category.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top