Disobedience in RCIA

[joshua_b]

Would’nt it be defiance to go around saying the Church should change something like contraception? By open discussion, do you mean just discussing the whys?

I think defining “open discussion” would be neccessary for me to make any type of comment on the second question.

In regard to the first, however, yes it would be defiance, and would be (objectively) sinful in that openly speaking AGAINST Church teaching would be scandalous.

 

[El_camino]

I find very often lay people misinterpret the actions of people in coma and PVS. They claim genuine signs of higher function when in fact there are only reflex actions. I can’t see why people equate being “pro-life” to keeping people going as long as possible regardless of the situation - esp if we have the hope of eternal glory. Otherwise why turn off ventilators at all, even in cases of brain stem death?
PS was Terry Schiavo even **on **“life support” - wasn’t she in a persistent vegetative state?

As someone said here, to let someone die because they are in a vegetative state, without the need for life support, is not to trust God that He can wake him/her up at some point. THere has been many instances that this has happen.

One thing is to be in life support and not being able to live without it ever, and taking people off of it to let nature take its course and another very different is to let someone die of hunger and thrist, which is what happened to Terry Schiavo.

I reiterate, this lady IS opposing life by disagreeing with the Church stance on the Schiavo Case and should be removed from being RCIA leader as she is confusing the catechumens and elects.

Blessing,

E.C.

 

[joshua_b]

It sounds arrogant to me to speak where the Holy Spirit has guided and contadict that teaching. However, expression of doubts can be an important step in developing one’s conscience and understanding Church teaching.

I mainly butted in, though, to say congratulations and welcome.

ABSOLUTELY (where are my manners ?)…WELCOME TO THE CHURCH !!!

 

[Dranu]

Why thank you! Believe it or not it was people like you all in forums who helped me see the truth of the Church. Keep up defending the true teachings of the Church. When heresy gets confused with the truth, it tempts those who hear it, and think it to be part of the Church’s beliefs (in ignorance) to falter from the Church, as no untruth is rational.
Thanks again for the help!

 

[Spirithound]

I sincerely hope Catholicism isn’t meant to be a strait jacket.

The Church is not a straitjacket. In Heaven, you are unable to sin, but only because your will is now in perfect communion with God. He has given us a chance to be in more perfect union with Him here on earth.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

I suffered in RCIA when I took it in 98 and 99.
My “priest” conducted the class and he was a flaming modernist. He always ridiculed Pope John Paul II,
claimed that the Catholic church does not teach any such thing as that we have a stain of original sin, taught that all Christian religions are equally valid (who needs the Catholic church then???).

What happened?
I suffered through it cuz I had studied the faith on my own,
but several people were turned off to the Catholic church because of my former priest and his teachings.
We had a Jewish RCIA candidate and he was so turned off he quit completely. Two other candidates were so offended at his modernism (which they mistook for the catholic faith) that they were scandalized and left to become Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Stand up for the truth.
God bless,
Jaypeeto3 (aka Jaypeeto4)

 

[guanophore]

I disagree with this and I think that maybe some ppl here are reading more into this statement than was intended. Being submissive and obedient does NOT mean we have no right to question and even to some sent disagree.

St. Jerome made it very clear how he felt about certain books being included in the official canon of Scripture, yet he submitted to the authority of the Magisterium over the objections he personally held. I think THAT is what the RCIA instructor was ultimately trying to say, and I think that is a perfectly acceptable mindset to have.

It is important to remember that “doubt” and “question” are not equated to “disbelief”. I’m a little disappointed, quite frankly, that too many people seem so quick to jump on the judgemental bandwagon. Don’t get me wrong, I would consider myself to be extremely conservative in my Catholocism, and rigorously defensive of Magisterial authority, but it is important to remember that there is a little “wiggle room” in regards to personal opinion in (not all) Catholic theology.

James 3:1-2
3:1 Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness. 2 For we all make many mistakes, and if any one makes no mistakes in what he says he is a perfect man, able to bridle the whole body also."

If she wants to dissent and wiggle, fine, let her come in here and do it. It is not right to do it in front of the RCIA class. She has a responsibility to promulgate the official catechism when she is in that role.

 

[jack_hawkins]

The Church is not a straitjacket. In Heaven, you are unable to sin, but only because your will is now in perfect communion with God. He has given us a chance to be in more perfect union with Him here on earth.

What I mean is, I see people going by the letter of the law as they see it, and forgetting the many examples in the Bible, OT and NT, where the rules were “bent”. Remember the Pharisees accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing? (Luke 6) He quoted to them the example of David and his men.

 

[guanophore]

What I mean is, I see people going by the letter of the law as they see it, and forgetting the many examples in the Bible, OT and NT, where the rules were “bent”. Remember the Pharisees accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing? (Luke 6) He quoted to them the example of David and his men.

Yes. I have seen this used a lot to profane the sabbath. I have done it myself! But I think that, before breaking rules, one must be able to follow them. In America, I see so many people failing to keep the sabbath that it just comes across as an excuse, rather than some sort of higher good.

 

[DallasCatholic]

What I mean is, I see people going by the letter of the law as they see it, and forgetting the many examples in the Bible, OT and NT, where the rules were “bent”. Remember the Pharisees accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing? (Luke 6) He quoted to them the example of David and his men.

Jack,
As with any religon you will find some people who go by the letter of the law and some who are more concerned with the spirit of the law. One of the beauties, to me, of the Catholic Church is that there is room here for all. You can even find Priests and Bishops on both sides of that fence. IMHO, going to far in either direction is problematic. I know that I personally struggle daily with some of these questions. Just a small example, it is popular in some parishes to hold hands during the Lord’s Prayer. Not only that, but in my parish they hold hands while assuming the Orans posture. This is strictly prohibited by the GIRM, the Orans posture is reserved for Priests. Personally, I clasp my hands together when we get to the Lord’s Prayer so that it is clear that I won’t be joining hands. When my friends ask me why I do this I don’t lay judgement on them, I simply tell them that it is a personal choice that I have made. Do I believe they are wrong for doing this? Yes. Am I following the letter of law? Yes. Why do I follow the letter of the law in this case but not in others? My only answer is that I look to my conscience and to God to guide me in these decisions.

Doug

 

[dcdurel]

                 Originally Posted by **jack hawkins**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=1956762#post1956762)                 
             *What I mean is, I see people going by the letter of the law as they see it, and forgetting the many examples in the Bible, OT and NT, where the rules were "bent". Remember the Pharisees accusing Jesus of breaking the Sabbath by healing? (Luke 6) He quoted to them the example of David and his men.*

.

Jesus never “bent” the law. Because Jesus never sinned.
The letter of the law was what it read literally. The spirit of the law was what the law meant. For example, the 5’th commandment reads, “thou shall not kill”. But, the everyone understands it means “thou shall not commit murder,” which is also the context of what it means in the Old Testament. Thus the law meant “don’t commit murder”, even though the literal reading prohibited all killing.
Jesus never broke the law by healing on the Sabbath, because there was no law against healing on the Sabbath. There were laws against doing work on the Sabbath, but that was understood to be unnecessary work, which the Pharisees perfectly understood. They would interpret the laws according to the letter of what it read, just to try to catch Jesus in sin, when they knew perfectly well what the law actually meant (spirit of the law).

 

[jack_hawkins]

You’re misinterpreting me. I’m not saying Jesus sinned - of course not. Hence why I put “bent” in inverted commas.
I am just saying that there are several examples in the Scriptures where the underlying principles were acknowledged rather than the strictest literalist interpretation of the law. The Jews had expanded the Ten Commandments into about 360 laws.
So naturally you rescue an animal on the Sabbath (even if that hadn’t been clarified) because that is consistent with the principles of our loving father. If someone needs a special dispensation to do that, then they have relinquished responsibility for moral decisions IMO.