Disagreeing with encyclicals/things in the Catechism

  • Thread starter Thread starter milkbar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

milkbar

Guest
A deacon at my parish taught in RCIA that Catholics do not have to believe everything in the Catechism or in encyclicals. What he said sounded a lot like moral relativism, and when I disagreed with him, I did indeed get a lecture about not seeing the world in black and white.

His basis for teaching that Catholics are free to act in ways contrary to what is taught by the bishops was that a Pope supposedly wrote in an encyclical a long time ago that Catholics should buy slaves. What was he talking about?

Am I incorrect in my belief that, if anything, in general, it’s safer to accept things in the Catechism and encyclicals as true, rather than consulting my own far more limited knowledge, which is all my conscience otherwise has to go on?

It seems dangerous to me for a deacon to, from a position of authority, teach the average non-theologian Catholic that they can consult their own moral compass when deciding what to do, even if the Catechism or other writings (such as Humanae Vitae) would advise them to act in ways they perhaps would rather not.
 
It is quite wrong for him to do this. He is saying that you can pick and choose what to believe. He is denying the truths revealed to us by the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. He is leading the average person astray from the faith. Say a prayer for him. Is it possible that you ask your Parish Priest about this?

Yes, we must believe everything the Church teaches. Encyclicals, and the Catechism.
 
What the deacon should have said is that (1) each Catholic has a duty to inform his/her conscience about what the Church teaches; and (2) each Catholic then has a duty to act according to his or her conscience or “moral compass”.

The key idea being that each of us has our own moral compass, but this compass must be informed by learning about what the Church (or synagogue, or mosque, or temple) teaches about morality.

Once that is done, we have a duty to act according to our informed conscience.
 
milkbar said:
A deacon at my parish taught in RCIA that Catholics do not have to believe everything in the Catechism or in encyclicals. What he said sounded a lot like moral relativism, and when I disagreed with him, I did indeed get a lecture about not seeing the world in black and white.

His basis for teaching that Catholics are free to act in ways contrary to what is taught by the bishops was that a Pope supposedly wrote in an encyclical a long time ago that Catholics should buy slaves. What was he talking about?

Am I incorrect in my belief that, if anything, in general, it’s safer to accept things in the Catechism and encyclicals as true, rather than consulting my own far more limited knowledge, which is all my conscience otherwise has to go on?

It seems dangerous to me for a deacon to, from a position of authority, teach the average non-theologian Catholic that they can consult their own moral compass when deciding what to do, even if the Catechism or other writings (such as Humanae Vitae) would advise them to act in ways they perhaps would rather not.
Click to expand...
The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains a summary of ALL Church teachings (both infallible and non-infallible) plus disciplines.
All the teachings must be believed and accepted.
You may disagree with some disciplines (e.g. celibacy of priests) but you must accept them.

As for conscience it should be formed in accordance with Church teachings.
You cannot get away with saying your conscience says its okay to use artificial birth control so you don’t have to believe the Church teaching.
 
Another example of too many deacons, too many EMHCs, etc. All of these burgeoning ranks raises the possibility of mal-formed or incompletely formed “authorities”. Take him aside with the Catechism.
 
Does anyone know what he was talking about re: slavery? He was holding this up as an example of something the Church had changed.

I’ve avoided the man since and I don’t even feel comfortable taking this up with the priest because I’m afraid my perception of what is reliable is faulty. If the Catechism is not something to which I can look to know what is worthy of belief and what is not, then what is? There is too much information; the Catechism is too valuable a “summary,” so to speak, massive though it is. But I’m incredibly nonconfrontational and even the thought of bringing up this issue to the priest and having this other deacon likely realize that I was the source of whatever inquiry is making me nervous. I have prayed for the deacon, though.

Previous poster, I do not see what EMHCs have to do with being in a position of authority to teach Catholic doctrine?
 
May the grace and peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you.

This Deacon is totally incorrect.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the “sure norm of Catholic teaching.”

What is the difference bewteen this Deacon’s misinformed teaching and the teaching of mainstream Protestantism? Don’t our Protestant brothers and sisters reject some of the official teaching of the Church found in the Catechism? Don’t they reject the authority of Papal encyclicals?

One of the main differences between Catholics and non-Catholics is that believing Catholics assent to the official teaching of the Catholic Church. As Catholics, the obedience of faith calls us to the following:
I. THE OBEDIENCE OF FAITH
Click to expand...
144 To obey (from the Latin ob-audire, to “hear or listen to”) in faith is to submit freely to the word that has been heard, because its truth is guaranteed by God, who is Truth itself.
Click to expand...
150 Faith is first of all a personal adherence of man to God. At the same time, and inseparably, it is a free assent to the whole truth that God has revealed. As personal adherence to God and assent to his truth, Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature.17
Click to expand...
First and foremost, we have a duty to correctly inform our conscience with the Truth, i.e., the official teaching of the Church.

Thistle’s post is absolutely correct.

God bless you,
Quis ut Deus 3
 
I don’t know about slavery, but I do believe that just because an encyclical is put out doesn’t make it infallible. If, however, it is based on the Church’s teachings then obviously a Catholic would have to accept it. Or on the very slim chance that it is declared infallible, then that would mean Catholics would have to accept it… If he puts out an encyclical on global warming, for example, then that is not an infallible Church teaching. It could be beneficial to read, but you are in no way required to accept it as the word of Christ and his Church. The CCC on the other hand is a book that lays out the faith and what Catholics have to believe or accept to belong to the Church.
 
You must follow the CCC, if you disagree with teachings in it you should do more research.
 
The Catechism is a “sure norm” for teaching the Catholic Faith

There are various kinds of teaching within the Catechism…

We are to *assent *to the various kinds of things with the assent proper to each…for example: some things are to be given the obedience of Faith or again as another example (not the only one) some things are to be given “religious assent of intellect and will”…

It is not a “picking and choosing” of course…but rather the assent of a Christian proper to each…

For example…some particular social doctrine will require the religious assent of intellect and will…where as some other teaching is to receive the assent of Faith…such as the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and rose from the dead…
 
Ahimsa said:
What the deacon should have said is that (1) each Catholic has a duty to inform his/her conscience about what the Church teaches; and (2) each Catholic then has a duty to act according to his or her conscience or “moral compass”.

The key idea being that each of us has our own moral compass, but this compass must be informed by learning about what the Church (or synagogue, or mosque, or temple) teaches about morality.

Once that is done, we have a duty to act according to our informed conscience.
Click to expand...
This is the best post I have read since joining this forum.
 
milkbar said:
Does anyone know what he was talking about re: slavery? He was holding this up as an example of something the Church had changed.
Click to expand...
Ask him to produce a copy of whatever document he is talking about. I seriously doubt that any Pope has ever actively commanded the faithful to own slaves. What if some member of the faithful were, himself, a slave? (ie: St. Patrick, when he was a teenager.) How could he then own a slave? 🤷
 
jmcrae said:
Ask him to produce a copy of whatever document he is talking about. I seriously doubt that any Pope has ever actively commanded the faithful to own slaves. What if some member of the faithful were, himself, a slave? (ie: St. Patrick, when he was a teenager.) How could he then own a slave? 🤷
Click to expand...
There is actually a whole book on how the Popes opposed slavery…

but we are getting off topic
 
Bookcat said:
The Catechism is a “sure norm” for teaching the Catholic Faith

There are various kinds of teaching within the Catechism…

We are to *assent *to the various kinds of things with the assent proper to each…for example: some things are to be given the obedience of Faith or again as another example (not the only one) some things are to be given “religious assent of intellect and will”…

It is not a “picking and choosing” of course…but rather the assent of a Christian proper to each…

For example…some particular social doctrine will require the religious assent of intellect and will…where as some other teaching is to receive the assent of Faith…such as the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God and rose from the dead…
Click to expand...
Let us assent and live accordingly 🙂
 
jmcrae said:
Ask him to produce a copy of whatever document he is talking about. I seriously doubt that any Pope has ever actively commanded the faithful to own slaves. What if some member of the faithful were, himself, a slave? (ie: St. Patrick, when he was a teenager.) How could he then own a slave? 🤷
Click to expand...
Catholics were allowed to own slaves is which is what I think they are getting at. The whole concept was quite a bit different though. For example the book of manumission was enormous (various ways to set slaves free). There was no race based slavery. Also the labour of the people was owned not the people themselves. Slaves were not treated anywhere near as harsh as in the American South.
 
Since we are to believe everything that is in the Catechism, that includes believing that which the CCC teaches on conscience. I believe that is what the deacon was attempting to teach, although by the first post he failed at the attempt. Yes, there are things in the Catechism that we do not **have **to believe on pain of heresy, but there is not anything that we shouldn’t believe. We have an obligation to the Church to accept all that she teaches. Where we in good conscience simply can not accept a teaching, if it is not a matter of dogma, we are obliged to understand the mind of the Church. Even a modicum of humility will cause us to recognize that we might be wrong and the Catholic Church right.
 
pnewton said:
Since we are to believe everything that is in the Catechism, that includes believing that which the CCC teaches on conscience. I believe that is what the deacon was attempting to teach, although by the first post he failed at the attempt. Yes, there are things in the Catechism that we do not **have **to believe on pain of heresy, but there is not anything that we shouldn’t believe. We have an obligation to the Church to accept all that she teaches. Where we in good conscience simply can not accept a teaching, if it is not a matter of dogma, we are obliged to understand the mind of the Church. Even a modicum of humility will cause us to recognize that we might be wrong and the Catholic Church right.
Click to expand...
I’ve personally found that all of my disagreements with the teachings of the Church dissipated with due research.
 
Canon Law (hence the legal wording):

Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2H.HTM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top