Does a Catholic have to believe in all Catholic teaching?

[DeFide]

Fourth point: You don’t have to believe everything the Church teaches to be Catholic. If you’re having a hard time accepting the Church’s teaching, so be it. Pray about it and try to understand it. Frankly, the following statement you made: convinces me that you are well within Church law: you’re making a submission of the intellect to the Church, despite your not “getting” the teaching.

The bottom line: you gotta try to get excommunicated, and you aren’t there.

That may not be a good way of putting it.

…Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

See full context here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;
2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor*;
6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

 

[Godfollower]

That may not be a good way of putting it.

…Thus, when Trent and other ecumenical councils employed anathema sit in regard to doctrinal matters, not only was a judicial penalty prescribed but a doctrinal definition was also made. Today, the judicial penalty may be gone, but the doctrinal definition remains. Everything that was infallibly decided by these councils is still infallibly settled.

This has consequences under current canon law. Those things that are both divinely revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church cannot be obdurately denied or doubted without the offense of heresy (CIC [1983] 751). Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication though this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323).

See full context here:
catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

Can. 1323 No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept:
1° has not completed the sixteenth year of age;
2° was, without fault, ignorant of violating the law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;
3° acted under physical force, or under the impetus of a chance occurrence which the person could not foresee or if foreseen could not avoid;
4° acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls;
5° acted, within the limits of due moderation, in lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor*;
6° lacked the use of reason, without prejudice to the provisions of cann. 1324, §1, n. 2 and 1325;
7° thought, through no personal fault, that some one of the circumstances existed which are mentioned in nn. 4 or 5.

But you’re leaving out another canon:

No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

(Canon 1321 sec. 1).

The external violation (in this case, obstinate denial or obstinate doubt) has to be “gravely imputable by reason of malice or ignorance.” Does that sound like Sing? “I have prayed about it, cried about it, talked to countless priests, and in the end, all that I can do is know that God sees my heart, and knows that I am trying my best to be faithful to Him.”? I’m sorry, but Sing just isn’t being obstinate, has no malice, and is not engaging in willful ignorance. Sing even said at one point, “I am constantly reading the arguments in favor of them, trying to understand. As of yet, I haven’t been convinced. But I am still trying.” That’s not heresy; that’s a faith journey. And I encourage Sing to keep on trying.

 

[DeFide]

But you’re leaving out another canon:

No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.
.

I’m not trying to say where Sing is, but I’m discussing the issue in general.

There are two issues with what you quoted.

1. You have a mistranslation.

c. 1321

1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or** culpability**.

To confirm this look at the Italian:

Can. 1321 - §1. Nessuno è punito, se la violazione esterna della legge o del precetto da lui commessa non sia gravemente imputabile per dolo o per colpa.

They just need to have sufficient awareness of what they are doing to be punished.

1. This section address external violations. External violations must at least be an act that could be perceived by another person if another person is present.

Even if we ignore this and assume it applies to all violations, the point I made in part 1 stands.

 

[Keikiolu]

ok this difference of opinion is what confuses me…

these people, one a priest, the other a Catholic. Both nice people, I connected with them very well…but I couldn’t distinguish between them and protestantism.

person one believes that all faiths are true. That there is no one true faith and that all are one but interpreted through different cultures.

“Catholic” means “universal”.

The “universal” church considers itself to include all those who “have any possibility of getting to heaven”.

Therefore, ALL “protestants” (as well as all “right intending” people everywhere and everywhen) are considered “erring members of the catholic church”, and would be welcomed into full communion upon a true conversion into compliance with the authority of the Catholic Church.

Since it is the “human condition” to tend toward sin (due to original sin), everyone is either trying to fully comply with that which is necessary to believe, or trying to “have their own way” (idolatry) which is a rejection of what is necessary to believe.

To not believe that there is “one true faith” is to allow for more than one true church, which is to disallow the case of there being an actual “CATHOLIC (universal) Church”.

To say there is NO CATHOLIC (universal) CHURCH can not be allowed by a member of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, as it’s a perfect description of a self-negating statement (said by an obvious hypocrit).

person two believes that priests will marry and that one day women will be priests. He didn’t believe in intercession…as it’s something that troubles me and I asked about it…

A catholic is allowed to “hope” for priests to be able to marry and for women to become priests, but they MAY NOT believe it as something TO BE STRIVEN FOR as a “good”.

They are allowed to “hope” for these things (for whatever “idolatrous” reasons) because they have free will, given by God, and that allows them to “entertain” anything whatsoever,… but they may not “work toward”, “BELIEVE”, the accomplishment of those things which are deemed “unacceptable” to church authority, as “belief” is an active activity (what one believes one “strives to see accomplished”).

To have a belief that is contrary to the Church is to believe that the Church is not the Church (as reasoned above), which is a blatant contradiction and proves one a hypocrit,… so while one may “fiddle with” ideas that are against church belief, one may not actively believe them and remain within the Church.

To be outside the Church is to forego the benefits of the Church, who’s overarching goal is to bring to heaven all those who fully accept truth (the faith).

these are just some of the things which confused me…

even as a protestant I have a hard time accepting that someone could think that all faiths are true and that there is not a true faith in Christianity…let alone a true faith solely in Catholicism

 

[Godfollower]

A catholic is allowed to “hope” for priests to be able to marry and for women to become priests, but they MAY NOT believe it as something TO BE STRIVEN FOR as a “good”.

To have a belief that is contrary to the Church is to believe that the Church is not the Church (as reasoned above), which is a blatant contradiction and proves one a hypocrit,… so while one may “fiddle with” ideas that are against church belief, one may not actively believe them and remain within the Church.

Umm … while I agree with much of your post, I think you’re missing something here. Anyone who wants to is allowed to work for, strive for, actively argue in favor of, etc., priests being allowed to marry, because (as the entire hierarchy readily acknowledges) priestly celibacy is merely a man-made disciplinary rule for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. No one is required to “believe” in the disciplinary rules of the Church; we’re just expected to obey them. And we’re perfectly free to argue for their change. So, if you would like to see the priestly celibacy rule changed in some way, feel free to advocate it. There’s no sin in that.

That doesn’t mean that the hierarchy has to do what you want, though…

 

[Godfollower]

I’m not trying to say where Sing is, but I’m discussing the issue in general.

There are two issues with what you quoted.

1. You have a mistranslation.

c. 1321

1. No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or a precept committed by the person is seriously imputable to that person by reason of malice or** culpability**.

To confirm this look at the Italian:

Can. 1321 - §1. Nessuno è punito, se la violazione esterna della legge o del precetto da lui commessa non sia gravemente imputabile per dolo o per colpa.

They just need to have sufficient awareness of what they are doing to be punished.

1. This section address external violations. External violations must at least be an act that could be perceived by another person if another person is present.

Even if we ignore this and assume it applies to all violations, the point I made in part 1 stands.

Huh. The Latin seems to have the same:

Nemo punitur, nisi externa legis vel praecepti violatio, ab eo commissa, sit graviter imputabilis ex dolo vel ex culpa.

(Canon 1321, sec. 1).

So I agree with you that “culpability” seems to be the original text. But “culpability” means blame or fault. So there has to be a reason for the delict to be imputable. Frankly, to my mind, “culpability” requires more than mere “negligence.”

As to the second point, you’re right: this canon only addresses external violations. That’s because internal violations are not punished. Re-read Canon 1321:

No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or negligence.

Then read that in conjunction with Canon 1330:

A delict which consists in a declaration or in another manifestation of will, doctrine, or knowledge must not be considered completed if no one perceives the declaration or manifestation.

So internal doubts and struggles are not punished.

 

[DeFide]

So internal doubts and struggles are not punished.

Struggles? Certainly not, but the canonical definition of heresy does not require that it be made public, only that it pertains to certain matter and that the required article of faith is obdurately doubted or denied in a baptized person.

See this:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

Re-read canon 1330. It clearly only adresses violations which are public. It essentially says that for it to be successfully made public, it has to be received. Shouting in an empty forest doesn’t count as a public act.

 

[Godfollower]

Struggles? Certainly not, but the canonical definition of heresy does not require that it be made public, only that it pertains to certain matter and that the required article of faith is obdurately doubted or denied in a baptized person.

See this:
ewtn.com/expert/answers/heresy_schism_apostasy.htm

Re-read canon 1330. It clearly only adresses violations which are public. It essentially says that for it to be successfully made public, it has to be received. Shouting in an empty forest doesn’t count as a public act.

That’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that the canon reads as follows:

No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable by reason of malice or culpability.

It doesn’t say “No one is punished for an external violation unless the violation … is gravely imputable…;” it says “No one is punished unless the external violation … is gravely imputable…”

It seems to me (correct me if I’m wrong) that you’re reading this canon as “For external violations only, no one is punished unless it’s imputable…” But the canon clearly seems to really say no one is punished at all unless an external violation is imputable.

To put it another way, I think you’re reading this canon as applying only to a subset of violations (specifically, external ones). I’m reading this canon as applying to all violations (but requiring external violations before punishment). Is there some way we can resolve this issue?

And I don’t see that Canon 1330 says anything about “public” violations; rather, it says that someone has to perceive the violation for it to be completed (Latin “consummatum”). In fact, it closely follows Canon 1328, which points out that someone who starts to commit a delict but stops is not bound by the penalty for a completed delict (unless the law in question says so).

 

[Gamera]

Forgive the thread hijack, but this really bugs me — a 17 year old atheist can incur automatic excommunication? Doesn’ t that mean he can only receive sacramental reconciliation from a bishop or a confessor authorized by the bishop? Because that was me, 20 years ago. Wouldn’t my confessor have mentioned that when I returned to the practice of the Catholic faith a couple of years later? Something seems really wrong there.

 

[DeFide]

That’s not the point I’m making. The point I’m making is that the canon reads as follows:

It doesn’t say “No one is punished for an external violation unless the violation … is gravely imputable…;” it says “No one is punished unless the external violation … is gravely imputable…”

It’s clear the subject is external violations. But even if it was expanded to cover all violations it just says:

No one is punished unless the external violation of a law or precept, committed by the person, is gravely imputable (meaning: assigned to the person) by reason of malice or culpability (meaning they are responsible for the violation of their own free will).

And I don’t see that Canon 1330 says anything about “public” violations.

A delict which consists in a declaration or in another manifestation of will, doctrine, or knowledge must not be considered completed if no one perceives the declaration or manifestation.

Non-public, obdurate heresy (sorry for the redundancy there) does not consist in a “declaration or other manifestation”.

(manifest: readily seen perceived, or understood)

 

[DeFide]

Forgive the thread hijack, but this really bugs me — a 17 year old atheist can incur automatic excommunication? .

No. Only a Catholic is subject to the rules of the Church. Even then, they have to know that they are committing an excommunicable offense.

 

[Godfollower]

Forgive the thread hijack, but this really bugs me — a 17 year old atheist can incur automatic excommunication? Doesn’ t that mean he can only receive sacramental reconciliation from a bishop or a confessor authorized by the bishop? Because that was me, 20 years ago. Wouldn’t my confessor have mentioned that when I returned to the practice of the Catholic faith a couple of years later? Something seems really wrong there.

No, s/he can’t. That’s the whole point of this discussion.

First,

The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept: . . . a person who has not yet completed the sixteenth year of age;

(Canon 1323, sec. 1).

Second,

The perpetrator of a violation is not exempt from a penalty, but the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed: . . . by a minor who has completed the age of sixteen years;

(Canon 1324, sec. 1, para. 4).

So a minor can’t be excommunicated, especially latae sententiae.

Third,

Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

(Canon 11).
So an atheist isn’t bound by canon law in the first place.

As for a baptized Catholic who became an atheist, we’d have to look at the person’s malice or culpability (or lack thereof). Moreover, keep in mind that

The following are not subject to a penalty when they have violated a law or precept:. . . a person who without negligence was ignorant that he or she violated a law or precept; inadvertence and error are equivalent to ignorance;

(Canon 1323, sec. 2).

 

[Godfollower]

A delict which consists in a declaration or in another manifestation of will, doctrine, or knowledge must not be considered completed if no one perceives the declaration or manifestation.

Non-public, obdurate heresy (sorry for the redundancy there) does not consist in a “declaration or other manifestation”.

Hmm. Food for thought. I’ll have to consider what you’re saying in more depth.

 

[Keikiolu]

Umm … while I agree with much of your post, I think you’re missing something here. Anyone who wants to is allowed to work for, strive for, actively argue in favor of, etc., priests being allowed to marry, because (as the entire hierarchy readily acknowledges) priestly celibacy is merely a man-made disciplinary rule for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

No one is required to “believe” in the disciplinary rules of the Church; we’re just expected to obey them.

Excellent…! I stand corrected.

And we’re perfectly free to argue for their change. So, if you would like to see the priestly celibacy rule changed in some way, feel free to advocate it. There’s no sin in that.

Thank you for the clarification.

Of course, if an advocacy for some change lead to a disbelief in the authority of the Church to decide (finally) on that issue, then it would indeed be a sin,… the sin being the disbelief in Church authority, not in the advocacy.

Which is basically what you said in the first place,… so once again, thanks for the clarification.

That doesn’t mean that the hierarchy has to do what you want, though…

If one TRULY believes that the church SHOULD do as one wants, then THAT BELIEF would be a sin, even if what one wants to do is trivial.

…But that’s just a restatement of the “denying Church authority” logic,… so once again we agree.

 

[Gamera]

I had completed my 16th year — as I said above, I was 17. And I was raised Catholic — I just totally defected. So according to Canon Law, to which I certainly was subject, I incurred an automatic excommunication by consciously refusing to believe in the essentials of the Catholic faith? Then why didn’t the priest say so when I went to confession a few years later? Does that mean that I’ve been walking around excommunicated for over 20 years without knowing it?

 

[estesbob]

I had completed my 16th year. And I was raised Catholic — I just totally defected. So according to Canon Law, to which I certainly was subject, I incurred an automatic excommunication by consciously refusing to believe in the essentials of the Catholic faith? Then why didn’t the priest say so when I went to confession a few years later? Does that mean I’ve been walking around excommunicated for over 20 years without knowing it?

Once you repented and confessed whehter or not you had been excomunicated or not seems a moot point. having said that it doenst appear it really matters one way or another.

 

[DeFide]

I had completed my 16th year — as I said above, I was 17. And I was raised Catholic — I just totally defected. So according to Canon Law, to which I certainly was subject, I incurred an automatic excommunication by consciously refusing to believe in the essentials of the Catholic faith? Then why didn’t the priest say so when I went to confession a few years later? Does that mean that I’ve been walking around excommunicated for over 20 years without knowing it?

I replied to this in post #50. Also, if you defected from the Church, you weren’t Catholic, despite your upbringing.

There are a few ways in which you did not incur the penalty of excommunication.

 

[Gamera]

No. Only a Catholic is subject to the rules of the Church. Even then, they have to know that they are committing an excommunicable offense.

Okay, so, a total apostate cannot be excommunicated because he’s already removed himself from the Church. I would have had to, say, believed 99% of Catholic belief yet rejected one particular doctrine. Gotcha. That makes more sense. Thanks.

 

[Godfollower]

I had completed my 16th year — as I said above, I was 17. And I was raised Catholic — I just totally defected. So according to Canon Law, to which I certainly was subject, I incurred an automatic excommunication by consciously refusing to believe in the essentials of the Catholic faith? Then why didn’t the priest say so when I went to confession a few years later? Does that mean that I’ve been walking around excommunicated for over 20 years without knowing it?

No! You were still a minor (just one who had reached the age of sixteen). So

the penalty established by law or precept must be tempered or a penance employed in its place if the delict was committed: . . . by a minor who has completed the age of sixteen years;

(Canon 1323, sec. 1).
As a minor, you were not subject to the full penalty in the first place. And it sounds like you brought this to a confessor, who dealt with it somehow (probably by employing a penance in its place, as provided for in canon law). Meaning that it’s done and dealt with.

But, if you want more peace of mind, you’re perfectly free to bring this up again during confession. Just remember to inform this new priest (or same priest, new time) that you’ve already discussed this, but you’re concerned that maybe it wasn’t fully dealt with.

 

[DeFide]

Okay, so, a total apostate cannot be excommunicated because he’s already removed himself from the Church. I would have had to, say, believed 99% of Catholic belief yet rejected one particular doctrine. Gotcha. That makes more sense. Thanks.

Part of the reason behind automatic excommunication for heresy is that it lets people know that they cannot go there without something very bad happening. The crossing of that line is not being Catholic. Excommunication itself does not necessarily mean that, but is a medicinal punishment meant to serve as a wake up call.

You might argue that the church should call it something different than excommunication when this violation is involved, but so far it has chosen not to do so. It’s a borderline issue, literally . It could be argued that it is a means of barring those separated from the faith from receiving the Eucharist, for example.

From Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 309:

The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. certa.)

In the Encyclical “Mystici Corporis”, Pius XII declared: "Only those are to be accounted really members of the church who have been regenerated in the waters of Baptism and profess the true faith, and have not cut themselves off from the structure of the Body by their own unhappy act or been severed therefrom, for very grave crimes, by the legitimate authority (D2286).