Doubting The Catholic Church a sin?

[cjcapta]

I have heard (more than once I believe) that The Catholic Church is not perfect. I even read this in a Catholic school book and I believe I heard it from a Catholic priest. And The Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past, such as The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and with Galileo (if my understanding of what happened at the time is correct). Therefore, don’t you think it shouldn’t be sinful to doubt The Catholic Church? But if it is a sin, is it be a grave matter or not a grave matter?

 

[bingbang]

I have heard (more than once I believe) that The Catholic Church is not perfect. I even read this in a Catholic school book and I believe I heard it from a Catholic priest. And The Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past, such as The Crusades, The Inquisition, and with Galileo. Therefore, don’t you think it shouldn’t be sinful to doubt The Catholic Church? But if it is a sin, is it be a grave matter or not a grave matter?

I don’t think it is a sin at all. I think it is very normal actually and people should critically analyze these types of things.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

I confessed the same thing to my priest once and he told me that doubts are often a blessing, because they encourage us to actively participate in the formation of our faith, to study and question and research, and that by doing this, we will come out the other side with a stronger faith and a better understanding of the Church and our beliefs.

 

[Bookcat]

I have heard (more than once I believe) that The Catholic Church is not perfect. I even read this in a Catholic school book and I believe I heard it from a Catholic priest. And The Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past, such as The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and with Galileo (if my understanding of what happened at the time is correct). Therefore, don’t you think it shouldn’t be sinful to doubt The Catholic Church? But if it is a sin, is it be a grave matter or not a grave matter?

One should not doubt the Catholic Church per se.

(talk with your confessor about your question as well)

But sinners and persons who make mistakes are in the Church…and individuals in the past made misjudgments or sinned…

So distinguish between the Church herself and some past members who did bad or wrong things…such can be called wrong if they were wrong.

But MUCH is wrong with what people think about the subjects you mention…lots of myths there…much is blown out of proportion regarding the crusades (which were actually defensive acts largely against Muslim aggression etc…) and the Spanish Inquisiiton which was actually rather mild in comparison to other secular courts (those guilty of other crimes would even blaspheme or do other things against the faith so they could be transferred to the inquisition for better treatment…and MUCH that has been said about them has been shown to be polemic from the time which was simply not true)…an the lots of myths etc about Galaleo

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0305sbs.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0709tbt.asp

catholic.com/library/Inquisition.asp
catholic.com/library/Galileo_Controversy.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0603tbt.asp

(other resourses are there on the CA site)

 

[markomalley]

I have heard (more than once I believe) that The Catholic Church is not perfect. I even read this in a Catholic school book and I believe I heard it from a Catholic priest. And The Catholic Church has made mistakes in the past, such as The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, and with Galileo (if my understanding of what happened at the time is correct). Therefore, don’t you think it shouldn’t be sinful to doubt The Catholic Church? But if it is a sin, is it be a grave matter or not a grave matter?

Doubting the teachings of Holy Mother Church is not a good thing, but I can’t think that it would be sinful, unless that doubt is somehow malicious in its nature. Ignorance is not something that is to your fault unless it is willful ignorance.

For example, let us say that you were raised in a house where they did not believe that Jesus was substantially present, body, blood, soul, and divinity in the Blessed Sacrament. Your doubt, even a lingering doubt of it after your conversion, could not be held against you. On the other hand, if you were raised in a faithful family and, for whatever malicious reason, decided that the Church’s teaching was false on that subject despite the efforts of learned and holy men to correct you, then that would be considered a heresy.

On the other hand, if you are ignorant of a subject and do not want to be taught, the principle of “invincible ignorance” would not apply either. Pope Pius IX related this concept well in his encyclical letter Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (On Promotion of False Doctrines) August 10, 1863:

7. Here, too, our beloved sons and venerable brothers, it is again necessary to mention and censure a very grave error entrapping some Catholics who believe that it is possible to arrive at eternal salvation although living in error and alienated from the true faith and Catholic unity. Such belief is certainly opposed to Catholic teaching. There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace. Because God knows, searches and clearly understands the minds, hearts, thoughts, and nature of all, his supreme kindness and clemency do not permit anyone at all who is not guilty of deliberate sin to suffer eternal punishments.
​

There is a difference, though, between doubting the teachings of the Church and the actions taken by those who were charged with its stewardship. Honestly, the point of view of the historian who interprets the evidences of the event is a major factor in how that event is reported. There are a lot of events where, in my opinion, the Church has been given an unwarranted black eye or at least an eye that is damaged far more than it should have been.

Warren Carroll, founder of Christendom College, has a multi-volume set of history texts known as the History of Christendom. I would suggest taking a look at it when making decisions about the Church’s decisions and actions. Those texts may shine some new light on these events.

 

[Light1111]

I confessed the same thing to my priest once and he told me that doubts are often a blessing, because they encourage us to actively participate in the formation of our faith, to study and question and research, and that by doing this, we will come out the other side with a stronger faith and a better understanding of the Church and our beliefs.

I too was told by a priest, when I was a child, that “Doubt is the greatest blessing to mankind.” I asked what he meant (I was only 9, so it was way over my head) and he only smiled, saying, “Some day that might mean something to you.” Over time it has evolved to take on new dimensions in my mind. I appreciated his candor then, and now!

 

[thirdworld]

I don’t see how it can be a sin. I doubt God and the Church a lot but it’s nothing I have control over. I try to have faith. As a recent convert, I still have a lot to learn about regarding God and the Church and I am in the process of learning. Sometimes I just don’t believe in God. Sometimes there is nothing I can think, say, or do to rationally convince myself that God is real, although within the last few days I haven’t had problems with that. But still questioning Catholicism has been a problem for me and I seek answers to my concerns in favor of the Catholic Church so I don’t think I’m sinning. I also feel like doubt is a healthy thing. I think it can sometimes lead to increased faith and knowledge. I know that at Mass this past Sunday there was a lecture about Saints doubting God and Jesus. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta doubted God a lot yet she is on her way to sainthood.

 

[Light1111]

I really agree with this. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find a deeply religious and/or spiritual person who never suffered through moments of doubt. Doubt almost has to be there from time to time, because we do have rational portions of ourselves, and in fact, in this world, we are learning increasingly that empiricism reigns supreme. Keeping one’s faith in a world that bears such intense suffering is not always easy. Those moments, I believe God is with us, and helps us to “re-find” Him again. At least that has been my experience.

The last time I was suffering with doubt, it was caused by my concerns for my dear friend, who is very ill (physically and emotionally). She’s suffered terribly over the past decade, with traumas in her family life. I do very intense prayers for her every day, but sometimes I feel that they’re not “making a dent,” as she still suffers with panic attacks, and a sad frame of mind. I was seated outside under a tree praying, and I said to God, “I am having such a hard time believing right now, such a hard time feeling connected. I want to help [my friend] so badly, but nothing I do seems to help. Can you help me?” A butterfly landed in my cupped palms just at that moment. I took it as a sign. It provided me such comfort and peace. Suddenly I felt it much easier to pray! And I ‘knew’ He was listening at that moment. The moment prior, I’d felt alone, helpless.

Doubt may be unavoidable, but coming out on the other side is also somewhat inevitable. Those moments strengthen faith overall, IMO.

 

[Newbie2]

I confessed the same thing to my priest once and he told me that doubts are often a blessing, because they encourage us to actively participate in the formation of our faith, to study and question and research, and that by doing this, we will come out the other side with a stronger faith and a better understanding of the Church and our beliefs.

Agreed.

I think we have to distinguish the very subtle difference between “doubt” and “questioning”, both of which are related.

I can doubt someone or something without looking further into the truthfulness of what that person said. If a Engineering friend said to me, “titanium valve springs work better at a higher RPM than heat-treated steel springs”, first, I would have no reason to doubt him at face value. However, I know that he likes to BS me for fun, on occasion, as I enjoy doing the same to him with medical information. Such is our friendship.

So, I can doubt him without going any further i.e. question whether or not he is giving me fact or fiction. Frankly, I couldn’t care any less about valve springs, so I don’t question what he says.

Perhaps it’s not a significant difference, but methinks questioning has more to do with wanting a better understanding rather than simply doubting.

 

[dsf11785]

The Catholic Church is infallible. This means that it is impossible for the Catholic Church to make an error in matters of Catholic dogma. So, for instance, if the Church decrees that Mary was conceived without original sin, you are required to believe this, and if you doubt it, then you are automatically excommunicated from the Church. This has been the teaching of the Church for two thousand years, and just because we now live in a culture where people are encouraged to decide truth for themselves, does not change this fact.

This may sound harsh, but if the Church had ever allowed people to doubt its teachings, it would have become disunified, and every Catholic would have had a different opinion, and traditions would not have survived, and the Church would have fallen apart and would no longer exist today. I repeat, if it had ever been allowable for Catholics to doubt the Church, there would be no Catholic Church surviving today. And if Catholics begin to doubt their faith today, there will be no Catholic Church in 200 years, but hundreds of different sects who all believe something different. So, even if you wish to go against centuries of Catholic teachings and believe that it is not sinful to doubt the Church, I would still advise you not to doubt it for the sake of the Church’s survival as a unified religion.

You may ask: But how is it possible for the Church to be infallible if it is just a human organization, and humans make mistakes? The answer is that the Catholic Church is NOT just a human organization. Jesus told Peter that He will be with the Church until the end of time, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. So Jesus and the Holy Spirit have been guiding the Church for centuries, and the Pope acts only as an instrument of the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, who cannot err. Jesus also said to Peter, when He appointed him first Pope, that “Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, so shall it also be bound in heaven”. So anything the Pope decrees is automatically decreed by God in heaven as well (a natural consequence since the Pope is guided by God). Consequently, the Church has never made a mistake on a matter of Catholic dogma in its entire history.

It is possible for the Church to make bad military decisions. The Church is only infallible in matters of Catholic dogma. Therefore, I think it is technically possible for the Church to make a mistake about something like the Crusades. But why do you think the Crusades were a mistake? If you were the pope, would you have sat by and watched Alp Arslan invade Constantinople, putting Islam in a position to conquer all the Christian nations? All the other religions in the world are allowed to fight to keep their land and their cultures without being criticized. Why is it, that when Catholics do the same, they are called greedy conquerors who wish to kill anyone who is not Catholic? Don’t believe people who tell you that the Crusades were about conquering the Holy Land and killing the heathens. If it were not for the Crusades, today you would have no Catholic Church down the street to go to every Sunday.

As for the Inquisition: The Church could not have survived if it had tolerated heretics. Again, the Church had to stay unified in its dogma or it could not have survived. Now, it is possible that there were certain Catholic inquisitors who committed unauthorized personal sins of excessive cruelty. But the Inquisition itself was not a mistake, but an absolute necessity for the survival of the Church as a unified religion.

No, it is not Catholic to doubt the infallible Catholic Church.

 

[dsf11785]

However, I understand that this presents a serious dilemma. In order to believe in something, it is important to wonder about it, to question it, and to investigate it. I don’t agree with having “blind faith”, because if all Catholics had “blind faith” then it would be hypocritical to try to convert people who have “blind faith” in other religions. A person who adheres to the Church’s challenge of faith without doubting by consenting to “blind faith” cannot help but wonder if what they have been raised to believe is really true, and this person will have a weak faith. Therefore, the only way to achieve a strong faith is first to go through this period of wondering, questioning, and investigating.

But the fact remains that you are not a Catholic unless you believe everything the Catholic Church teaches without doubt. That is the Church’s position, whether or not it makes sense to me. So, does this mean that you are not a Catholic until you are finally past this stage of wonder, questioning, and investigation? I guess so. You can see that this is a dilemma for me as well.

Jesus told Thomas, “Blessed are they who have not seen, yet believe”. This means that it is wrong to discover truth by investigating with your physical senses. So how, then, is it possible to discover truth? Only with prayer, I think, could you or I find the answer to this.

In conclusion to all this, here is my advice. To doubt your faith is a smaller mistake than to settle for “blind faith”, and these seem to be the only two options for now. Therefore, continue to question your beliefs, but do not call it “doubting”. Instead, call it “investigating the truth”. That is a more honest description of what you are probably doing, anyways.

And if your investigation leads you to believe that Catholicism is true, just remember that with Catholicism, either you believe it all 100%, or you are not a Catholic; so believe it all, and preserve the unity of our Catholic beliefs for the future.

 

[TedDC]

No, it is not Catholic to doubt the infallible Catholic Church.

And that’s why I’m no longer Catholic

 

[thirdworld]

dsf11785 you need to understand it is hard to have faith and it’s not something you can force on yourself. For it is a process. The more I learn about the Catholic Church the more I trust and the more faith I have. Reason/logic and prayer also help with this. I think as long as someone is sincerely trying to follow God and know the Truth, then she or he is not sinning just by having moments of doubt.

 

[tafan]

CCC:

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.

The Catechism is not exactly clear, but it seems to imply that voluntary doubt is indeed a sin. If one has a doubt about the teaching of the church, one is obligated to strive for a better understanding of the teaching and to prary so as to overcome that doubt. If the doubt is allowed to persist unchecked, one is likely sinning.

 

[Light1111]

But what is “voluntary doubt”? This ties back to the thread where the poster questions if belief can be forced. Does one really “own” those moments of doubt? I know that I struggle to get “back on track” with my belief each time doubts arise within me – and I do find, each time, that the journey back to my faith has strengthened it (and me) overall.

I never quite found “Doubting Thomas” to have committed a sin, in asking to touch Jesus’ wounds. I found in him a supreme devotion to truth, battling a rational inability to accept his own eyes. I relate to Thomas’ doubt, and I also believe Jesus understood it, and forgave it. To me, Thomas was a defender of Jesus – such a strong defender, he wanted to be sure it was truly Jesus, before accepting. It may appear his doubt came from a diminished faith, but I believe what we witness was instead a faith so intense, it then conflicted with his rational mind. Ultimately, Thomas’ rationality was quelled by his faith, and I believe Jesus understood Thomas’ internal struggle. As did God.

 

[BlueShadow123]

The catholic church is not perfect. Nothing in this world is perfect. God has said that many times.

However, we all have free will and any believer has doubted god at least ONCE in his life. Even if they won’t admit it, even for just ONE second, everybody has at least had one doubt. But god gave you that free will. And there is nothing wrong with it. Its your job to find the true answer for yourself. I personally think god is real, but I understand people who doubt it. They have faith issues. The idea of god is based on faith, and without it, you can’t understand god.

 

[tafan]

But what is “voluntary doubt”? This ties back to the thread where the poster questions if belief can be forced. Does one really “own” those moments of doubt? I know that I struggle to get “back on track” with my belief each time doubts arise within me – and I do find, each time, that the journey back to my faith has strengthened it (and me) overall.

I never quite found “Doubting Thomas” to have committed a sin, in asking to touch Jesus’ wounds. I found in him a supreme devotion to truth, battling a rational inability to accept his own eyes. I relate to Thomas’ doubt, and I also believe Jesus understood it, and forgave it. To me, Thomas was a defender of Jesus – such a strong defender, he wanted to be sure it was truly Jesus, before accepting. It may appear his doubt came from a diminished faith, but I believe what we witness was instead a faith so intense, it then conflicted with his rational mind. Ultimately, Thomas’ rationality was quelled by his faith, and I believe Jesus understood Thomas’ internal struggle. As did God.

I would think voluntary doubt is doubt that is not addressed. If I say “I don’t know if I believe in transubstantiation” and leave it at that, ie do nothing to come to an understanding and belief in it, it is voluntary and it is a sin.

 

[Light1111]

That makes sense, tafan. I guess you could say that visiting this board, then, and asking questions about whatever you don’t feel clear on, could eliminate the “voluntary doubt,” turning it into something you begin to understand, instead!

 

[tafan]

That makes sense, tafan. I guess you could say that visiting this board, then, and asking questions about whatever you don’t feel clear on, could eliminate the “voluntary doubt,” turning it into something you begin to understand, instead!

You are welcome. One mroe thought. We should not forget that faith is a gift that God will give us. Perhaps the best way to deal with any doubt is to pray. Pray that God leads us to accept the full teaching of the Church. God will give us more faith if we ask for it.

Reminds me of Pascal’s wager. Unless you read the whole thing, no one ever talks about his advice on how to place the bet. If one doesn’t believe, how does one make the bet? His answer, in effect, start praying.