Does this make me a "cafeteria Catholic"?

[AlanFromWichita]

And so must we have a good explanation when we stand before God.

I rest my case.



Alan

 

[PRmerger]

Anyway - I sort of hear something similar in Alan’s post on contraception. That he defers to the Church’s teaching on the matter, but if one is engaging in sex outside marriage anyway, the use of a condom “limits collateral fallout” (pregnancy and disease). It’s not saying that it is right but …If one is to advise (or admonish) the person it is better to admonish them for the fornication rather than the condom use…Stop the one and the other goes away.

Peace
James

And Alan and I would be on agreement on this, too.

My own personal opinion is that condom use, between a married couple when one of them is infected with AIDS, may be the licit thing to do. One is using it for medical reasons (infection control) and not contraceptive reasons. In my mind, it’s the same concept as using the birth control pill for medical purposes, not for contraceptive purposes–which is permitted by Church teaching.

HOWEVER, as the Church has not proclaimed that condom use in the situation I have described is permissible, I will defer to the Church on this point. And as a Catholic I will continue to say, “It is not permissible to use condoms, even if it’s between a married couple and the intent is to prevent infection, not prevent conception.”

So, if I understand James and Alan’s posts…

Alan also defers to Church teaching here when his own personal opinion is different? Yes?

 

[PRmerger]

OK, then I mean the teachings of the Church. Surely you have seen scores of posters claiming they are perfect?

Actually, the best post I’ve read on this topic is found here.

Essentially, I find it irrelevant whether the Church claims infallibility or not, and I don’t waste very much brain power discerning whether teaching A is infallible and teaching B is not.

Even if the Church may be wrong on a particular point, I am 100% certain that God is navigating the ship, so if we’re seemingly headed in the wrong direction, (like Moses was) I certainly don’t want to be like Korah–we know what happened to him!

 

[PRmerger]

And if we find out 10 years after a marriage whether it was “actually” a marriage or could be annulled as if it didn’t happen, that means that when we go to a wedding we have no idea whether the wedding we’re witnessing constitutes a valid marriage.

Actually, Alan, what we must presume, as the Church does, is that the marriage is valid, until proven otherwise.

Thus the need for marriage tribunals.

And thus the reason why, even though a person may want to be married again in a Catholic Church when her 1st marriage was (apparently) a farce, she cannot. We presume the first marriage was valid.

Otherwise, the paradigm is exactly what you say–each and every time we witness a couple at the wedding altar we’d have to wonder, “Is this going to end in an annulment?”

See how wise the Church is!

 

[PRmerger]

Thanks for sticking with me. I don’t know about you, but this is helping me sort out what I think and what I don’t. That way if I’m right I’m also clearer about it, and if I’m wrong I know where I stand now and where I need to go.

:tiphat:

Alan

I’m trying to navigate my way through your responses, and I’m still not quite sure you understand my question, and the point of my question.

I asked if there was anything that you changed your position on, based on the authority of the Church.

The reason I ask that is because any spiritually honest person MUST acknowledge that he HAS to have some POV that is in discord with what God has revealed. Reason dictates that if his answer is, “Well, no, God seems to agree with everything that I’ve declared to be true…” then, well, we know that this is a FALSE God that this man has set up. No God will be in accord with everything that man desires.

And, from a cursory reading of your posts it would appear that NO, you have not conformed your view to anything the Church has proclaimed. Rather, you are consonant with only the things that agree with YOU. And what doesn’t fit your own personal criteria means that the Church is wrong and you are correct.

The condom thing, as I re-read it, shows that you *haven’t *changed your POV, nor do you defer to the authority of the Church on this.

Is this a correct assessment?

 

[PRmerger]

So basically even if we think we have an idea that might help the Church, if it goes against any documentation, we can’t even consider bringing it up.

I haven’t found this to be the case.

Can you give an example of what you have in mind here?

To me that isn’t obedience; that’s blindness and a robot could do a better job if all the rules are determined in advance. We have human instinct and guidance by the Holy Spirit to act immediately in a situation, without having to refer each and every time to the books.

I am unsure why you would think that we are not given permission as Catholics to “act immediately in a situation.”

If every decision we make is subject to a previously written document as its final arbiter, then like I said we would be worse than robots.

In your paradigm, what is the criterion we should use to be the final arbiter of a decision?

Now, of course, we are all agreed that it would be “God”, but how is it that you discern God would be speaking to you in a specific decision-crossroad?

I do not require Church teachings to agree with what I believed before I hear the teaching.

This is interesting. You knew, before “hearing” the Church say that:

-God is a Trinity?
-Jesus had 2 natures?
-Jesus’ suffering and death atoned for your sins?
-Jesus rose from the dead?
-the Gospel of Mark is inspired?

etc etc etc…

How did you know this without being told by the Church?

 

[Jocko_VT]

I must humbly proffer that it sounds absolutely like this is what it’s all about.

It’s not. This isn’t about whether the Church is up to par for me, but whether I’m up to par for the Church! I’m ready to commit, even though I recognize my own shortcomings.

But will you leave her because of this?

*I *won’t leave her. But, in the analogy, we’re not married quite yet. The question is: If I don’t quite live up to *her *criteria, does *she *still want to marry me?

But, perhaps I’m being overly cautious. After all, when Jesus called his first disciples (e.g., Mark 1:16-20), he didn’t quiz them on their understanding of theological issues. What I’m hearing in this thread is that I’m far enough along.

 

[JRKH]

And Alan and I would be on agreement on this, too.

My own personal opinion is that condom use, between a married couple when one of them is infected with AIDS, may be the licit thing to do. One is using it for medical reasons (infection control) and not contraceptive reasons. In my mind, it’s the same concept as using the birth control pill for medical purposes, not for contraceptive purposes–which is permitted by Church teaching.

HOWEVER, as the Church has not proclaimed that condom use in the situation I have described is permissible, I will defer to the Church on this point. And as a Catholic I will continue to say, “It is not permissible to use condoms, even if it’s between a married couple and the intent is to prevent infection, not prevent conception.”

**So, if I understand James and Alan’s posts…

Alan also defers to Church teaching here when his own personal opinion is different? Yes?**

I really like your post here. Well done.

In regards to the bolded, I cannot speak for Alan, but I would say that, after properly forming one’s conscience on a given matter (condom use?), one must act in a specific situation in the way they, personally, believe to be correct.
I would not phrase this as “personal opinion” as you have above, but rather “personal conviction” operating within ones best understanding of teaching and intent…and governed by the Catechism section on conscience.

And I must emphasize that such a thing is highly personal and specific. It should not be broadcast (as some do who disagree or doubt Church teaching), nor should one arrive at a “pat stance” on how they would proceed in a given situation that is contrary to Church teaching, nor should one reject a teaching because they simply do not understand it.
However, if one finds ones self in a difficult situation, they might need to choose between the “lesser of evils”. Then, “well formed conscience” must be relied on.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

I really like your post here. Well done.

In regards to the bolded, I cannot speak for Alan, but I would say that, after properly forming one’s conscience on a given matter (condom use?), one must act in a specific situation in the way they, personally, believe to be correct.
I would not phrase this as “personal opinion” as you have above, but rather “personal conviction” operating within ones best understanding of teaching and intent…and governed by the Catechism section on conscience.

And I must emphasize that such a thing is highly personal and specific. It should not be broadcast (as some do who disagree or doubt Church teaching), nor should one arrive at a “pat stance” on how they would proceed in a given situation that is contrary to Church teaching, nor should one reject a teaching because they simply do not understand it.
However, if one finds ones self in a difficult situation, they might need to choose between the “lesser of evils”. Then, “well formed conscience” must be relied on.

Peace
James

But do you see, James, if a person cannot answer, “Yes, I have conformed my view to that of the Church” on any particular issue, then the conclusion is that you have created a god in your own image, rather than conforming your image to Christ’s.

For how could it be that your conscience has always been informed enough to defy the teaching of the Church and one has never had to conform?

Does that seem consonant with reason and our understanding of a Divine Creator? Our ideas are always in conformity with his so that we never have to change our views?

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not. This isn’t about whether the Church is up to par for me, but whether I’m up to par for the Church! I’m ready to commit, even though I recognize my own shortcomings.

Fair enough.

Wish I could be present at your wedding this Easter Vigil!

II]won’t leave her. But, in the analogy, we’re not married quite yet. The question is: If I don’t quite live up to *her *criteria, does *she *still want to marry me?

The Divine Marriage Proposal is always present.

But if you say yes it comes with all the duties and obligations that come with any Yes.

But, perhaps I’m being overly cautious. After all, when Jesus called his first disciples (e.g., Mark 1:16-20), he didn’t quiz them on their understanding of theological issues. What I’m hearing in this thread is that I’m far enough along.

'Tis true, this. And I imagine when Jesus proclaimed doctrines and teachings, (say, on divorce and re-marriage being adultery) none of his disciples told him, “Lord, I am your disciple but I really think you’ve got it wrong on this one.”

Rather, those who could not take his difficult sayings grumbled and left.

See John 6: 41-52

At this the Jews there began to grumble about him because he said, “I am the bread that came down from heaven.” 42 They said, “Is this not Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How can he now say, ‘I came down from heaven’?”

43 “Stop grumbling among yourselves,” Jesus answered. 44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day. 45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[d] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father. 47 Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life. 48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died. 50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die. 51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

52 Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves, “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. 55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them. 57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” 59 He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”
61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life. 64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65 He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled them.”

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

But do you see, James, if a person cannot answer, “Yes, I have conformed my view to that of the Church” on any particular issue, then the conclusion is that you have created a god in your own image, rather than conforming your image to Christ’s.

A lot of posts to answer. Whew. I think I’ll start with this last one to James.

I reject that God requires conforming our views to the Church. He may require me to do what the Church says to do (like Jesus told His followers to do) but do NOT act like them. And why not? Is it because they are so academic and judgmental and protective about their wonderful rules that they know the words that need to be spoken but they do not have any personal experiences to have the human empathy to truly be in communion with Christ? We’re trying to figure our way out of the situation. And there seems to be this presupposition that every single issue we encounter every minute of our lives is covered in detail in one way or another by Church teachings, and that if we only are clever and persistent enough, we can calculate the right thing to do.

Why did Jesus even send the Holy Spirit? How can the Holy Spirit guide us when our ego can’t let go of the false notion that it can calculate definitively from documentation, every single response that every person who ever lives should have to each and every possible stimulus. That’s crazy talk, and believe me I know crazy talk when I hear it.

For how could it be that your conscience has always been informed enough to defy the teaching of the Church and one has never had to conform?

One way is to advance until you are reborn in the Spirit. Then you will not sin, and you don’t need to know rules in advance to know what’s right to say or choose, as you get your head out of the way and let the Spirit guide you by the heart. You just have to quit using the carnal mind as a prophylactic against intimacy with God by raising shields to interfere with true learning, healing, and renewing that requires a fully open mind and heart to receive.

Think of this. God didn’t put us here to serve the Church. God put the Church here to serve us. We support the Church, but we’re the reason for it, not the other way around.

Does that seem consonant with reason and our understanding of a Divine Creator? Our ideas are always in conformity with his so that we never have to change our views?

The Divine Creator punished the entire human species because one man tried to do what we are doing here. We think that our knowledge of the Scripture and dogmatic obedience to it is going to get us into the kingdom, and that’s rubbish. The Bible clearly speaks the opposite. For example, knowledge of the kingdom of heaven is hidden from the wise and learned, but know to little children. So what do we do? We keep trying to be more like the wise and learned and look to them for to figure out things with great complexity. What I want to know, is if honest scholars are a loggerheads for generation about what a particular teaching means in any given situation, is how do we pick which exclusively right answer that is the only answer, do we pick? (Hint: consider dualistic v. non-dualistic thinking.)

Again, the Church is not God, she is supposed to point us toward God. An arrow pointing to heaven, as one book is called. I accept the Church as a teacher and as a guide, but not as a commander. If we are the Body of Christ, and the Church is our bride, then aren’t we supposed to be the heads of households? That makes sense, because the Church wouldn’t exist except for many people loving her and passionately giving their lives to her. So we are in charge of the Church in this world, not the other way around.

But with authority comes responsibility. If we are in charge of the Church, then we are also responsible for her failures. But I can’t be responsible for something over which I have no authority. Now remember, God told women to be subject to men, but for men to love their brides the way Jesus loved His bride. Duhh. We’re part of His body. That’s why we honor martyrs; no greater love for the church is there than to give your life for her?

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

'Tis true, this. And I imagine when Jesus proclaimed doctrines and teachings, (say, on divorce and re-marriage being adultery) none of his disciples told him, “Lord, I am your disciple but I really think you’ve got it wrong on this one.”

Rather, those who could not take his difficult sayings grumbled and left.

I just can’t see Jesus standing 10 feet in front of me, telling me to my face, “Alan, tell your daughters that if they should sin, they should never use a condom because it offends Me enough that I’d rather see them at higher risk of being killed.” How about telling me, “Alan, you MUST vote for this candidate for governor because the pro-life organization said they were pro-life, even though they may have done untold damage to the condition of states they governed previously”

Sorry. Just can’t get either my head or my heart to buy into that. :nope:

Maybe the Church doesn’t exactly teach these things if you dig deeply enough, but you couldn’t prove it by anything I see posted much around here.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

But do you see, James, if a person cannot answer, “Yes, I have conformed my view to that of the Church” on any particular issue, then the conclusion is that you have created a god in your own image, rather than conforming your image to Christ’s.

For how could it be that your conscience has always been informed enough to defy the teaching of the Church and one has never had to conform?

Does that seem consonant with reason and our understanding of a Divine Creator? Our ideas are always in conformity with his so that we never have to change our views?

Two points…

1. We are on a journey from imperfect to perfect, from unholy to holy… While on that journey we can honestly and in good conscience be in error…error that we hope to correct by growing in holiness.
2. Church teaching is not designed to cover every single permutation of every single aspect of every single condition of every event in every single person’s life that ever lived.

Recognizing our imperfection, and our struggle to become perfect as we are called to be in Mt 5:48, AND given the shear volume and magnitude of teachings given to us by Holy Mother Church (some of which is quite involved and detailed and intellectually “deep”), how can the average layman say - in Truth - that they have “conformed their view” on issues they have perhaps not given a great deal of study.

We accept and we try to obey because we wish to be conformed. We study so that we might become more conformed.
Were I have difficulty with conforming my mind, I “accept” because I accept the Church’s authority to teach - as I accept Christ.

The above might not be terribly clear…I dunno…

The Church recognizes that they cannot cover every situation. She tries to provide the best possible training she can. She tells us that we need to learn and understand her teaching. BUT, a part of that teaching makes the point that the conscience is free to act. The conscience is not confined to slavish obedience like the pharisees tried to enforce, nor to a strict, “If-Then” series of statements like a robot running a computer program.
The conscience is to become informed - trained in Church teaching and if, when and where, the conscience finds itself in an unclear circumstance, it needs to look, not at the letter of the law, but at the principles - principles that all boil down to Love (Mt 22:36-40).

People come to these boards all the time and ask “What if” questions. Many of these offer a conundrum or conflict between teachings…Perhaps the classic example is the, “lying to hide Jews” one, but there are many others. In each case, in each conundrum, we seek to give the questioner the best moral answer. In every case, our basic guide is Love. What is the Loving solution. That is our guide through, and test of, how we apply Church teaching.

At least that is how I see it…

Peace
James

 

[AlanFromWichita]

1. Church teaching is not designed to cover every single permutation of every single aspect of every single condition of every event in every single person’s life that ever lived.

http://bestsmileys.com/party/5.gif

Recognizing our imperfection, and our struggle to become perfect as we are called to be in Mt 5:48, AND given the shear volume and magnitude of teachings given to us by Holy Mother Church (some of which is quite involved and detailed and intellectually “deep”), how can the average layman say - in Truth - that they have “conformed their view” on issues they have perhaps not given a great deal of study.

Not even the scholars can say that, for at least two reasons I can think of.

1. no one human being can possibly learn them all, much less internalize them, in even 100 lifetimes. We need to assign priorities.

[Probably most of the teachings don’t even apply to any given one of us, so we must find those that apply and which don’t. Why does it matter what we believe about those which don’t? For example, why must I understand and agree to Church teachings on homosexuality when I have neither expertise or experience in the matter and never had any inclination toward it – so that I can judge my brothers for their behavior? Why must my children hear about contraceptives when they are 7 years old and sitting in the pew? And we wonder how children lose their innocence?]

1. the scholars don’t understand it. They operate from an intellectual level, so it is no wonder that they believe being correct is more important than being loving and kind to others who may be wrong about something – or maybe they are not wrong but we think they are.

Some day we are going to have to have a thread dedicated to these:

Matt 11:25
At that time Jesus said in reply, “I give praise to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike."

Luke 10:21
At that very moment he rejoiced [in] the holy Spirit and said, “I give you praise, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, for although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike. Yes, Father, such has been your gracious will."

Childlike. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, you must be “childlike” to enter the kingdom. That’s right. Hmmmm… is “childish” close enough? Maybe I have a chance.

The Church recognizes that they cannot cover every situation. She tries to provide the best possible training she can. She tells us that we need to learn and understand her teaching. BUT, a part of that teaching makes the point that the conscience is free to act. The conscience is not confined to slavish obedience like the pharisees tried to enforce, nor to a strict, “If-Then” series of statements like a robot running a computer program.
The conscience is to become informed - trained in Church teaching and if, when and where, the conscience finds itself in an unclear circumstance, it needs to look, not at the letter of the law, but at the principles - principles that all boil down to Love (Mt 22:36-40).

YESSSSSSSSSSS!

In every case, our basic guide is Love. What is the Loving solution. That is our guide through, and test of, how we apply Church teaching.

Absolutely. Totally. Without doubt. Beyond question. At least it is to me. It seems that the more we intellectualize God, the more we miss the boat. What do we say when God asks us why we called His people a pejorative name? No point in trying to fool God so maybe something like, “Yes, Lord, well I did the research and found out that not only does the term objectively apply, I was morally obligated to warn him that he was in danger of going to hell because of it.”

You want to talk about real non-negotiables? There are only two that I know of, the Two Great Commands you have cited.

And never forget these words from our Lord, from Matt 5:22 …
“whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.”

Alan

 

[PRmerger]

1. Church teaching is not designed to cover every single permutation of every single aspect of every single condition of every event in every single person’s life that ever lived.

Indeed.

Is there a Catholic poster here who has been asserting that Church teaching is designed to cover “every single permutation of every single aspect of every single condition of every event in every single person’s life that ever lived.”

I’m quite certain that I haven’t read anyone making that argument, but, perhaps you have and you’re addressing this?

 

[PRmerger]

BUT, a part of that teaching makes the point that the conscience is free to act. The conscience is not confined to slavish obedience like the pharisees tried to enforce, nor to a strict, “If-Then” series of statements like a robot running a computer program.

'zactly.

And my point is simply this: if a Christian has never had to examine his conscience, and RE-CONFORM it to that which he doesn’t prefer/believe/profess, then I proffer that this is a conscience made in one’s own image and not in God’s.

For it stands to reason that the conscience of any human creature is not going to be aligned with God’s, and will need to re-conform it.

Now, I have asked Alan if there’s anything that he is able to say, “Yes, I believe but have conformed my belief to because God has decreed this to be so” and it appears that his answer is no.

This is quite curious and speaks to a conscience that has not deferred to God but rather has allowed itself to believe that God’s will conforms perfectly with Alan’s own tastes.

The fact that some say “what the Church teaches” does not necessarily equate with what God wishes is curious, in that I always find these posters always find the Church to be quite reliable on a number of teachings. To wit: they will readily accept that God is love, and the only way they would know this is because the Church has preserved this teaching for them. They will accept that we are to love our neighbor and help the poor, something else that the Church has proclaimed. They will quote the Gospel of Matthew, accepting the Church’s declaration that the Gospel of Matthew is* theopneustos, * yet peculiarly will say that they don’t believe that God is speaking when she says , which does not conform to their own personal theology.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Now, I have asked Alan if there’s anything that he is able to say, “Yes, I believe but have conformed my belief to because God has decreed this to be so” and it appears that his answer is no.

This is quite curious and speaks to a conscience that has not deferred to God but rather has allowed itself to believe that God’s will conforms perfectly with Alan’s own tastes.

Oh wow. Sorry but I’ve gotten backed up and forgot about that question.

The quick answer is “yes.” Now for the baggage I have attached to it …

There are many ways I have changed or enhanced my understanding of things because of Church teachings. This often happens right in the middle of a thread. Someone gets through to me what the Church really says about something, and I say, “oh, I get it. I can get on board with that.”

One problem I have is that I can literally go for months or years of posting with one poster after another bombarding me with the same “truths” the Church teaches, only to discover they were misstating Church teachings. Since I don’t pretend to be a scholar, I defer to what others say the Church teaches or what a particular passage in the CCC for example actually says. So they say the Church teaches this, so am I going to accept it or be satisfied with being a heretic, CC, relativist, new age, eastern, or whatever label they decide to affix. This has happened countless times over the years I’ve been on here. So what I have found was that it turned out it was not Church teaching at all that I was rejecting, but a characature of Church teachings according to those posters’ personal biases. But they had me impressed for a long time and I used to think I had to try to convolve my own beliefs to match what they say in an effort to align with Church teachings, but my conscience was sensitive enough to recognize right from wrong, even though it may have been presented differently as if it were Church teaching.

One thing that raised so many red flags for me that it was hard to see through them, was the frequency by which self-proclaimed absolutist, 100% Roman alignment, more-Catholic-than-you posters told other Catholics they should not use “Catholic” as their religion in their forum profile. This is absolutely against Catholic teaching, but when I call these posters to task on it, it goes right over their head. Rather than admit they are guilty of telling others to do wrong things in the name of the Church, they turn it back around with more demands and accusations that if I don’t change my view and agree with them then I shouldn’t call myself Catholic. They tell me I’m in danger of hell for being a CC, but THEY ARE TOO!!! and just refuse to see it.

I’ve learned to distinguish actual discussion with conversational bullying, and have thus become fairly immune to the bullying. It’s like a poster may be right, but if that poster can’t explain it to me, or explains it using logic with flaws that are obvious to me (I used to be expert at logic) then I’m not going to lie and say, “oh, I see now” just because you intimidate and frighten me into thinking I had to agree with you or be wrong, risk going to hell, leading little ones astray, etc. I’ve heard it all. Saying the same wrong thing louder doesn’t make me more likely to believe or understand it; OTOH it makes me that much more suspicious and cautious to look for even the slightest loopholes.

The fact that some say “what the Church teaches” does not necessarily equate with what God wishes is curious, in that I always find these posters always find the Church to be quite reliable on a number of teachings. To wit: they will readily accept that God is love, and the only way they would know this is because the Church has preserved this teaching for them. They will accept that we are to love our neighbor and help the poor, something else that the Church has proclaimed. They will quote the Gospel of Matthew, accepting the Church’s declaration that the Gospel of Matthew is* theopneustos, * yet peculiarly will say that they don’t believe that God is speaking when she says , which does not conform to their own personal theology.

You have a valid concern, and you might be surprised but I agree this happens a lot. We all seem to have a horse in this race. We all seem to have something at stake if the rule is this way v. that way. Like if God said we wear purple on this day and pink on that day, then sure, why not? But if God said do not call your brother a fool (or heretic, or CC, or whatever) or you will be subject to fiery Gehenna, somehow we just don’t hear it. We simply don’t hear it, despite having ears. We don’t hear it because we cannot hear it, because we have so much invested in what we already do that even when God SHOUTS at us, STOP IT!!! we go on and on, unscathed, day after day, telling each other what an idiot the other one is for not complying with Church teachings. Hells bells, is that the pot calling the kettle black, or what?

For myself, I love change when it makes me better. I am hungry to be told where I might improve myself. I may have be invested in a particular side of a discussion, but not because my ego has a problem with being wrong and thus won’t admit to it. If nobody ever disagreed with me and said whatever I say it must be right, I would be very weak indeed, in all aspects of my life. Maybe it’s because that’s one thing my ego was NOT trained to do as a young person – being afraid of being corrected. When I intentionally and knowingly did wrong or showed disrespect or something I might get a spanking, but if I didn’t understand the issue I would get an explanation instead of a spanking, and I was happy to have been corrected.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

Indeed.

Is there a Catholic poster here who has been asserting that Church teaching is designed to cover “every single permutation of every single aspect of every single condition of every event in every single person’s life that ever lived.”

I’m quite certain that I haven’t read anyone making that argument, but, perhaps you have and you’re addressing this?

You are correct. No one has made that specific argument and I was not suggesting thy had.
I was merely trying to point out that regardless of how extensive Church teaching is, and no matter how well we learn church teaching, there comes a time when “Conscience” must enter the picture.
That is all.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

'zactly.

And my point is simply this: if a Christian has never had to examine his conscience, and RE-CONFORM it to that which he doesn’t prefer/believe/profess, then I proffer that this is a conscience made in one’s own image and not in God’s.

For it stands to reason that the conscience of any human creature is not going to be aligned with God’s, and will need to re-conform it.

Well, while I never like to use absolutes, I do see what you are saying.

The fact that some say “what the Church teaches” does not necessarily equate with what God wishes is curious, in that I always find these posters always find the Church to be quite reliable on a number of teachings. To wit: they will readily accept that God is love, and the only way they would know this is because the Church has preserved this teaching for them. They will accept that we are to love our neighbor and help the poor, something else that the Church has proclaimed. They will quote the Gospel of Matthew, accepting the Church’s declaration that the Gospel of Matthew is* theopneustos, * yet peculiarly will say that they don’t believe that God is speaking when she says , which does not conform to their own personal theology.

No argument here.

To me, these matters reflect the need for a very careful walk with the Lord. If one goes too far one way, they become too “Lax”, too “comfortable”, too “presumptuous”. Go to far the other way and they become too “Legalistic”, too “Scrupulous”, too Pharasitic, too judgmental.
The one gives the conscience too much authority and ignores the need for “good formation” while the other gives the conscience too little authority and ignores the fact that the faith is a living breathing thing.

One of the main thrusts of Jesus ministry was to take “The Law” and make it alive and personal again.

Peace
James

 

[PRmerger]

Oh wow. Sorry but I’ve gotten backed up and forgot about that question.

The quick answer is “yes.” Now for the baggage I have attached to it …

There are many ways I have changed or enhanced my understanding of things because of Church teachings. This often happens right in the middle of a thread. Someone gets through to me what the Church really says about something, and I say, “oh, I get it. I can get on board with that.”

It would be helpful if you could perhaps give an example of this?

IOW: “I believed this (example) and then I found out from this post (example) that the Church teaches (example) and now I believe that.”

One problem I have is that I can literally go for months or years of posting with one poster after another bombarding me with the same “truths” the Church teaches, only to discover they were misstating Church teachings.

Could you give an example of this as well, Alan?

One note: the above is a great reason for Catholics to take responsibility for being well-informed about their faith, and not to simply go by what another Catholic has proffered.

Since I don’t pretend to be a scholar, I defer to what others say the Church teaches or what a particular passage in the CCC for example actually says.

I don’t think this is a very good idea–except if what you’ve read is from a poster that is clearly well-informed. I certainly wouldn’t go by what every or any Zealous Anonymous Catholic Poster says here on the CAFs.