Dissenters: Why do you call yourself a Catholic?

[estesbob]

And would the only litmus test for a conscience being properly formed be that it completely agrees with every church teaching? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a total waste of time and effort.

It is the responiblity of the Church to provide guidance for us to form our consciecne. It is our responsibilty to embrace this guidance. Conscience is not a get out of jail free card that allows us to pick and choose which teachings we will accept.

 

[fix]

And would the only litmus test for a conscience being properly formed be that it completely agrees with every church teaching?

The Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of truth.

 

[Joe_5859]

And would the only litmus test for a conscience being properly formed be that it completely agrees with every church teaching? If so, then the process of forming it would seem to be a total waste of time and effort.

The Church gives us the general moral principles. She does not tell us how to apply those principles in every conceivable situation. That’s why we need a well-formed conscience (and why it is far from a “waste of time”). If our conscience isn’t well-formed (i.e. the Church’s moral teaching is not internalized), then when we have to make split-second moral decisions, we will be at a loss.

If there is no alternative which is anywhere near as good as the Catholic Church, why leave? Yes, I certainly disagree with some things for what I see as very good reason but it’s still the best there is.

This brings up another great point to answer the question in the OP. For some people, even if they disagree, the Catholic Church still comes closest to what they believe.

And I am certainly not affecting anyone else’s relationship with God by my struggles with the Church…

Does God have a bad day if I mumble the words *“Women should be allowed to be priests…” ? *(even though I have not personally ordained one…). Better yet, does this this affect anyone’s relationship with God?

I think it is a great danger to underestimate the influence we have on those around us. Our dissent from clear Church teaching (such as your example of women’s ordination) certainly can affect another’s relationship with God. We are all a role model to someone. Whether we are aware of it or not, there is someone in our lives that looks to us as the model for what it means to be Catholic. When we dissent from clear Church teaching, we send the message that (a) it is okay to disagree with clear Church teaching, (b) the Church sometimes does not know better than I do and thus (c) is able to err on matters of faith and morals. This can lead people to stay away from the Church, leave the Church, and/or make some very bad moral decisions.

In our culture that has so privatized religion, we often assume our religious views only affect us. That is a mistake.

 

[Ender]

I understand how some can just say the believe and agree with everything the church says, does, and requires - but what possible good is it to do that when one can’t rationally accept it?

"What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” … The assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind.” (CCC 156)

People keep saying “I can’t accept what the Church says …” but this completely misses the point: the Church is not making the rules.

“The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith.” (Fides et ratio 7)

To question whether there should be women priests is to reject the fundamental purpose of the Church, it is not merely to doubt that JPII fully understood the question. The implications of the doubt are much greater than the doubt itself: if the Church is wrong on something about which she has definitively spoken then she has shown herself to be untrustworthy of being believed on anything at all. She can require assent and inspire faith only if she offers truth.

“… sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.” (Dei verbum 10)

To reject the teaching authority of the Church is, for a Catholic, to reject tradition and scripture as well.

Ender

 

[Joe_5859]

"What moves us to believe is not the fact that revealed truths appear as true and intelligible in the light of our natural reason: we believe “because of the authority of God himself who reveals them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.” … The assent of faith is “by no means a blind impulse of the mind.” (CCC 156)

People keep saying “I can’t accept what the Church says …” but this completely misses the point: the Church is not making the rules.

“The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith.” (Fides et ratio 7)

To question whether there should be women priests is to reject the fundamental purpose of the Church, it is not merely to doubt that JPII fully understood the question. The implications of the doubt are much greater than the doubt itself: if the Church is wrong on something about which she has definitively spoken then she has shown herself to be untrustworthy of being believed on anything at all. She can require assent and inspire faith only if she offers truth.

“… sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others.” (Dei verbum 10)

To reject the teaching authority of the Church is, for a Catholic, to reject tradition and scripture as well.

Ender

Great post!

What’s at stake is more than just the individual teaching in question. It strikes to the heart of the nature of the Church and the nature of our faith.

 

[johnlal]

Great post!

What’s at stake is more than just the individual teaching in question. It strikes to the heart of the nature of the Church and the nature of our faith.

The Church is infallible. Dissenters won’t affect the heart or the nature of the Church. If the Church is affected in any way by dissenters, it will be by inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit. While I don’t expect dissenters to move the church one inch, I would have to say that if the Church does move, it will be moved by the Spirit.

 

[Ender]

What’s at stake is more than just the individual teaching in question. It strikes to the heart of the nature of the Church and the nature of our faith.

Exactly. To believe that one can pick and choose which teachings to accept is to destroy the basis on which it makes sense to accept any of the teachings. If the Church is not who she claims to be then it is delusional to believe she has any more claim to the truth than Buddhists, Wiccans, or the Aztecs, and a rejection of part of what she teaches definitively is to assert that she is not who she claims to be.

Ender

 

[drpmjhess]

I follow the Jesus who said

• “Love one another as I have loved you”
• “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
• “if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses”
• “So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you.”
• “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:”
  Not the one who said, “persecute the homosexuals”, “degrade women by making them less than men”…or, wait, Jesus didn’t say any of those things did he?
  ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments"

A very thoughtful post, BillP.

 

[Joe_5859]

A very thoughtful post, BillP.

With all due respect, I very much disagree. BillP’s post implies that holding to the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are gravely disordered or the teaching that women can’t be priests somehow means that we are “persecuting” and “degrading” other people. I would call that a strawman, not a thoughtful argument.

 

[drpmjhess]

With all due respect, I very much disagree. BillP’s post implies that holding to the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are gravely disordered or the teaching that women can’t be priests somehow means that we are “persecuting” and “degrading” other people. I would call that a strawman, not a thoughtful argument.

I didn’t say it was an argument; I said it was a thoughtful post.

 

[Joe_5859]

I didn’t say it was an argument; I said it was a thoughtful post.

That is true. But I still disagree.

The post made no explicit argument, but there certainly is an implicit argument. And the implicit argument is that those who agree with Church teaching on homosexuality and women’s ordination are guilty of persecution and degradation (not to mention the implication that they disagree with Jesus’ words in Scripture). In logic, this is a strawman. He is incorrectly linking the views of those he disagrees with to something that no one could agree with in order to illustrate that dissent from Church teaching is not just acceptable but practically mandatory. If you don’t think that’s what BillP was trying to do, I’m open to alternative explanations.

Maybe you can appreciate a post as “thoughtful” even though it makes a logically dishonest argument. If so, more power to you.

 

[estesbob]

That is true. But I still disagree.

The post made no explicit argument, but there certainly is an implicit argument. And the implicit argument is that those who agree with Church teaching on homosexuality and women’s ordination are guilty of persecution and degradation (not to mention the implication that they disagree with Jesus’ words in Scripture). In logic, this is a strawman. He is incorrectly linking the views of those he disagrees with to something that no one could agree with in order to illustrate that dissent from Church teaching is not just acceptable but practically mandatory. If you don’t think that’s what BillP was trying to do, I’m open to alternative explanations.

Maybe you can appreciate a post as “thoughtful” even though it makes a logically dishonest argument. If so, more power to you.

I agree-when I see a post like BillPs I take it as an attempt to derail the discussion by claiming bigotry on the part of anyone who criticizes dissent from Church teachings-or in the case of this post is accusing the Church itself of Bigotry.

Perhaps Bill could explain to us what he meant

 

[drpmjhess]

Maybe you can appreciate a post as “thoughtful” even though it makes a logically dishonest argument. If so, more power to you.

I don’t know that it’s dishonest; I like Bill’s post #7. But I’ll wait until Bill himself writes again.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

For better or worse, the Catholic faith is generally nuanced. Consider your list regarding ‘evil’. We do not consider homosexuals to be evil, we consider certain homosexual acts to be evil.

I never said homosexuals were evil, I said homosexuality was evil. Remember, love the sinner, hate the sin.

Although there is no doubt about abortion being a grave moral disorder (EVANGELIUM VITAE), there is plenty of legitimate debate even among Catholics who accept that teaching. In fact, the majority of Catholics on this forum that describe themselves as intensely pro-life openly support compromise on the question of abortion, at least in terms of secular voting.

Abortion is EVIL, it is a SIN. I don’t care what a majority of anybody says.

Pride is also hard to exactly quantify. Several of St. Paul’s epistles appear to loudly profess his accomplishments. What seemingly distinguishes them from, say, the prideful boasting of the Pharisee with regards to the Publican is that the Lord’s rightful role in all things good are acknowledged.

But pride still remains open to perception. .

Ah yes, the cry of the relativist - there is no reality, only perception.

Pride is what caused Adam and Eve to commit Original Sin. Pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. What’s not evil about that?

Why try to deny that Evil is Evil and play semantic games (like Bill Clinton - it depends on what “is” is)? Oh, we’re so smart and sophisticated and witty, and you’re so stuffy and old-fashioned, believing in sin and evil. Why not have everything be a grey area, let’s wallow in relativism and each of us decide based on our individual consciences (which have been formed by TV and popular music) what Church teaching we will accept and which we will reject.

NO. Jesus said, I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me. (not I am one of many ways, or one of many truths)

That doesn’t sound equivocal. Or nuanced.

 

[drpmjhess]

I never said homosexuals were evil, I said homosexuality was evil. Remember, love the sinner, hate the sin.

It will be interesting to see what the reaction from conservatives will be to yesterday’s California Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. Jubilation on the part of some; dejection on the part of others. Battle royal in the offing?

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

I think it would be good if we made these issues seperate and stop assuming they go together. There is no logical reason why someone who supports Abortion is going to support gay marriage as well. These are two seperate issues and should be treated as such. Furthermore, it must also be realized that there are over 1 billion Catholics and it is virtually impossible to get everyone in that group to operate as one large monilith. Especially on desisive issues like Abortion and Gay marriage.

 

[minimom]

MarkoMalley: I am SO glad you brought that up! Boy do I hear ya! (See my post on family life re. wimpy relatives.) I have a strong hunch some who are posting here are trying to hijack the Church and are not Catholic. Others seem to be cafeteria Catholics. My brother, for example considers himself Catholic, is pro-abortion, pro Planned Parenthood, hangs out with a nun who promotes socialism, loves Leftist extremists, etc. (pulling my hair out…) The devil has such people by the throat, and you cannot even quietly and respectfully reason with them-they close their minds. I am praying SO hard for people like that. They are truly lost. I honestly think we need specific bigtime prayer efforts, Masses, etc. just for such people. Is it any wonder our country is in such a mess? These people say they hate war but practically consider contraception and abortion sacraments, and adore everything ‘green.’ Freaky.

 

[minimom]

to clarify…when I said “posting here” I meant in the entire CA forum- not on this specific thread.

 

[Des]

Furthermore, it must also be realized that there are over 1 billion Catholics and it is virtually impossible to get everyone in that group to operate as one large monilith. Especially on desisive issues like Abortion and Gay marriage.

Catholics ‘obey’ the Church. If they are decisive on these issues then one side or the other is in willful disobedience.

Both issues harm children. Homosexual unions ‘force’ children to grow up into an unnatural and dysfunctional relationship.

Abortion kills the children while still in the womb.

These two issues ‘Catholics’ should know where they stand. We cannot pick and choose on major morality topics that the church has proclaimed to be intrinsically evil. Both have always been rejected by the Church for the past 2000 years and will forever continue to be rejected. Non Catholics can be easily swayed into thinking they are ok as they have no voice except society’s influence to tell them right from wrong. We who are Catholic and believe the Church is the teacher of faith and morals cannot. That is the entire point of being a Catholic. To submit oneself to the teachings of the Church. To be taught by the Chuch and not by the ways of society.

Abortion for example is scientifically proven to be the killing of a human being. Yet many people blindly assume that it’s the woman’s right to kill the baby because it is in her body. And why are they assuming. Because of the loud voice of society telling them that it is a woman’s right without any logical thought going into their argument. It is so loud that people just assume they are right.

Everywhere I look in most forums on the net nowadays, when the subject comes up, the majority of folks support gay marriages and actually defend it as being natural and good for society. Personally, I feel some just don’t want to feel shunned by their peers and are in a safer position to go with the flow than against it.

 

[drpmjhess]

Everywhere I look in most forums on the net nowadays, when the subject comes up, the majority of folks support gay marriages and actually defend it as being natural and good for society. Personally, I feel some just don’t want to feel shunned by their peers and are in a safer position to go with the flow than against it.

While I don’t support gay marriage, I’m glad the California Supreme Court ruled as it did last week. Some gay and lesbian couples have children, and these children need legal protection. The state has no business marrying anyone as it can’t sanctify marriages; a better solution would be for the state to guarantee protection for all couples and their children by granting civil unions to all. The churches would then be free to sanctify relationships or not, as they see theologically fit.

Petrus