Disagreement without practicing

[ADiosgracias]

Can a Catholic disagree with what our religion teaches us (without making them practice) for example, gay marriage, contraception, papal infallibility, and also receive communion?

 

[mountee]

Let me restate what I think you have asked, could a Catholic have a personal disagreement with the Churches stance on an issue, for example, contraception. As long as that person does not act on that disagreement is that ok? My opinion would be yes, it is ok to have a difference of opinion as long as you obey the rules.

 

[bzkoss236]

If what you are saying is if it is okay to disagree with a doctrine, but still partake in the doctrine anyway. For instance, you asking if it is okay for someone to be okay with contraception, but still not contracept themselves. I believe yes. I believe this is a type of doubt (can’t remember the exact adjective) in which the person lacks full understanding about a particular doctrine, but chooses to abide by the doctrine.

 

[Corki]

Can a Catholic disagree with what our religion teaches us (without making them practice) for example, gay marriage, contraception, papal infallibility, and also receive communion?

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the "obedience of faith"9 as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations.10 Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

That’s the Catechism. The question, which only you can answer is whether your “disagreement” is a doubt, a denial or a rejection.

Using the above example of contraception. Doubt or hesitation about contraception is not sinful. Rejection, even just personally, of the teaching is. It is not the same sin as contracepting yourself but it is a sin against faith and it can be a grave one if it is “obstinate”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

You cannot deny a tenet of the faith, such as contraception or papal infallibility, and still be in good standing with the Church to receive the Eucharist.*CCC#2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”*And from canon law:*Can. 1364 An apostate from the faith, a heretic or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication [aka, automatic excommunication].

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism, of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is the total repudiation of the christian faith. Schism is the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.*

 

[MarcoPolo]

the person lacks full understanding about a particular doctrine, but chooses to abide by the doctrine.

That is different than denying or “disagreeing” with the doctrine, as I understand the OP to have asked.

 

[pamnbam]

By receiving the Eucharist, you are publicly stating that you believe in all the Church teaches on matters of faith and morals, pretty much everything in the CCC and you are in a state of grace. If you don’t understand the reasoning behind a particular teaching but accept the teaching (this occurs a lot due to our human weakness), receiving is fine. If you reject a teaching because you don’t understand it, it would not be okay to receive.

 

[Hokomai]

I am not following this thread. The OP seems to have been given many different answers.

The OP’s question was about “disagreement”. So the first thing that should be addressed is: is a Catholic required to ‘agree’ with each of the teachings mentioned. If so, what does ‘agree’ mean: fully accept in every way; accept mostly; accept in the sense that they are willing to ‘believe’ they are wrong and the church is right, but they don’t know how? Or possibly ‘agree that it is the teaching of the church and be willing to explain it’? (I have come across this last one).

Or does ‘agree’ mean ‘intellectual assent’: ‘I don’t feel like I believe it, but I choose to’.

Surely there is a definite answer to such a straightforward question?

 

[MrsNoahMoerbeek]

No, it is not permissible.

Having doubts is one thing, or not being inclined toward a certain viewpoint (on an issue of faith/morals) but nevertheless accepting it and not “encouraging” or publicizing your misunderstanding. Look into why the Church says what she does and pray for the grace to accept it, and it would not be a sin to receive Holy Communion. But flat-out disagreeing is another matter, one in which you cannot receive as you technically would not be in “communion” with the Church. (I’m not suggesting the reception of Holy Communion is merely symbolic, only that there is that aspect in addition to the True Presence). I’m not sure which scenario you meant…

 

[Corki]

I am not following this thread. The OP seems to have been given many different answers.

The OP’s question was about “disagreement”. So the first thing that should be addressed is: is a Catholic required to ‘agree’ with each of the teachings mentioned. If so, what does ‘agree’ mean: fully accept in every way; accept mostly; accept in the sense that they are willing to ‘believe’ they are wrong and the church is right, but they don’t know how? Or possibly ‘agree that it is the teaching of the church and be willing to explain it’? (I have come across this last one).

Or does ‘agree’ mean ‘intellectual assent’: ‘I don’t feel like I believe it, but I choose to’.

Surely there is a definite answer to such a straightforward question?

It’s not that simple. Different levels of Church teaching carry different requirements. For example, for a discipline, it is only necessary to be obedient. For a doctrine, the requirement is assent of faith. For an authoritative teaching that does not rise to a higher level, the requirement is that it receive religious obedience of intellect and will.