Doubts about doubt

[itsjustdave1988]

… it takes for granted that we are studying errors.

As I see it, it presumes instead the wisdom of our forefathers. Even if our forefathers are fallible, it would be temerious to reject wise and time-tested counsel.

In the example I was thinking of, my 15-year-old son (baptized Catholic but having doubts about his faith) had friends who claimed to be Wiccan. My boy, with a stated desire to learn more about what his friends believed checked out several books from the library on Wicca. When he brought the books home, I looked through them and decided he would not be reading through these books at this time. I explained to him that I thought that he first needed a better foundation in the Catholic faith prior to being allowed to read about Wicca, as the books he checked out from the library posed too much of a danger to his faith.

He didn’t like my answer. He thought he was smart enough to reason for himself what was true and what was false religion. He might have been. However, as the authority in my house, I thought it best to err on the side of caution. Having decades more experience, reasoning capacity, and having been exposed to much more testimony, my judgment on the matter differed from my 15-yr-old. Perhaps when he’s in college, he can study other religions. For now, he’s not yet competent in “Theology 101” and would be ill-prepared to handle “Theology 102.”

The same could be said of many adult Catholics, dependent upon their prior catechesis or preparedness (or lack of it). Jesus did not send out his disciples to evangelize on day one. He first made sure their consciences were well-formed.

Those in the position of actually having to do this to settle doubts, as opposed to being better equipped to refute what one knows to be erroneous, don’t have this luxury.

For settling doubts, I asked my son to talk to me. See here:

***Letters to a teenage skeptic, *#1 , #2, #3, **#4 and #5

I wanted him to learn from my experience, my reason, and the testimonies I’ve studied, to include my mistakes.

For more mature Catholics who have solid catechesis, I would still ask them to talk to me, and their pastor, their bishop, and a spiritual advisor. However, it may be that after honestly attempting to form their own conscience, they still have doubts with regard to the Catholic religion. In such cases, I believe they likely need an “exodus” experience of their own, much like I had when I left the Church as a teenager and didn’t return until over 25 years later. Wandering in the desert wasteland to be “tempted” can do some spiritual good at times, if you can endure it.

Sometimes people need to stand at the crossroads in their lives to discern the best path for their soul. In some instances, they may feel the need to live as “prodigal sons” for a time prior to finally realizing that it is the “ancient path” and “good way” where they will find rest for their soul.

“This is what the Lord says: "Stand at the crossroads and look; ask for the ancient paths, ask where the good way is, and walk in it, and you will find rest for your souls.” (Jer 6:16).

The path to Christ is not always a straight line. Moses wandered the desert, going away from the promised land at times before arriving at his final destination.

They aren’t sure that these teachings are actually errors, and so the issue of prudence doesn’t really apply to them

When in doubt, it is certainly prudent to learn from someone who has “been there, done that.” That’s part of the “testing” process. You don’t have to be a “prodigal son,” experiencing sin for oneself in order to learn. You can instead trust the testimony of former sons who were once prodigal. Testing everything is not only prudent, but commanded. It is the letting go of that which is good which is the risk, but a risk taken every time the “testing” occurs.

 

[Lazerlike42]

When in doubt, it is certainly prudent to learn from someone who has “been there, done that.” That’s part of the “testing” process. You don’t have to be a “prodigal son,” experiencing sin for oneself in order to learn. You can instead trust the testimony of former sons who were once prodigal. Testing everything is not only prudent, but commanded. It is the letting go of that which is good which is the risk, but a risk taken every time the “testing” occurs.

The problem is that this would hold true for a Protestant, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, or anyone belonging to any false or incomplete belief system. If a Protestant fellow begins to doubt his faith, then by this line of thinking, he ought to go to his minister, or to the anti-Catholic he knows from the Sunday service who himself came from the Catholic Church. Such a person may never find the truth, because he is giving the benefit of the doubt to the veracity of his current system and entrusting himeslf to those who are biased.

Now a well-thinking Protestant will realize this problem, and will resolve not to be kept from the truth by the possibility that his forefathers were wrong. I can’t see how a Catholic would not be in the same position.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… The first century Christian is learning from St. Paul, who is an unambiguous source.

Paul wasn’t an “unambiguous” Christian authority ***in ***the first century. The testimony of others had to be “trusted” against one’s own personal views at times. It had to be corroborated by other testimony whose authority was trustworthy.

Moreover, "the" Church was not considered “higher authority” to many in the first century. It was only authoritative to those who “trusted” their eyewitness testimony according to faith, affirming from belief in their testimony that they are indeed the voice of God. That was not as unambiguous as you think it was.

There were various heresies even in the first century. There were many Jews who simply distrusted that any of those so-called events occurred according to their testimony. How could a 1st century living in or around Jerusalem discern truth from error, the heretics from the orthodox? I suppose they had to judge the religion by its fruits, no?

If they judged in favor of Christianity because of the “fruits” of that religion, they surely had to “listen to the Church,” as that was the clear source of that religion. Who was the authoritative teachers in the Church? The eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus Christ. Peter and the apostles in communion with him spoke for Christ. You had to be joined to them to be orthodox Christian no matter one’s subjective conviction with regard to the party of “circumcision.” Peter’s decision was not based upon clever reasoning at the Council of Jerusalem, but instead he prefaced his judgment by saying, “God made choice among you, that by my mouth the nations should hear the word of the gospel and believe.” (Acts 15:7). Yet, there were still many “Judaizers” even after the Council of Jerusalem sent out its decrees.

The 20th century, 1935 Christian woman is in the position of wanting to submit her conscience to God, and being uncertain as to whether or not the Church is in fact speaking for God.

What would the source of her uncertainty be? If she is a woman of 1935, she probably doesn’t even know anyone who is non-Catholic. She is likely to know little about theology, at least beyond the HS level. What competence would she have to even test the goodness of the Koran, for example, even if she was allowed to by canon law or dispensation?

Let’s pretend this particular 1935 woman was well educated theologically speaking, as rare as that would be. What does she have doubts about? What caused such doubts? Has she told her confessor of her doubts? Does she have equal doubts regarding the government of her county? If its a question of freedom, doesn’t she have just as much freedom in rejecting her religion as she does in rejecting citizenship in the country she lives in?

I think perhaps you are looking at 1935 disciplinary norms through 2008 glasses.

If it is simply doubt as to whether the Church speaks for Christ, the word “Church” is used only twice by Jesus in the Gospels: once where he says “I will build my Church” (Matt 16:18ff) and the other where he says, “listen to the Church.” (Matt 18:15ff). So the question about whether the Church speaks for Christ is easily answered in the affirmative. He said, “He who hears you, hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me.” If she has basic theological education, such a doubt should be easily resolved.

The harder question is, which so-called Church is the Church of Christ?

To answer that question, one needs to focus their attention on the “Church throughout” that I referenced above. The ekklesia kata holos certainly cannot be one which appeared centuries after the advent of Christ, but must have been present “throughout” in the first century and in every century since then. If one has serious doubts about what is “Christian” then I challenge them to learn that Christianity that was taught in every century since the advent of Christ. The choice becomes very narrow very quickly at that point.

If it is a question of whether Christianity is the voice of God or some other religion, again we are called to “test everything. Hold fast to what is good.” This is sound advice no matter the religion. Through what I’ve called in the past “calculatus eliminatus” I have found that every religion claiming to be the voice of God fails miserably when measured against the goodness and truth of Christianity–and I studied all of the major world religions before coming home to the Catholic Church. It’s actually not as hard a discernment process as some imagine, but it does take some thought.

… she has no choice but to listen to those whom she is prohibited from listening to.

If she is already a baptized Catholic, she is indeed governed by Catholic law. That’s the nature of law. Yet, as soon as she rejects the authority of the Catholic Church, she is no longer governed by it. As I told an atheist and “free thinker” advocate some time ago, I have free choice as a Catholic (that statement just about knocked him out of his chair ). In other words, I am not forced against my will to be Catholic. I have a free will, and as such have the power to choose by beliefs.

I have a “heretical imperative” even if I was born Catholic in 1935. I can choose to worship my left foot if I so desire. However, I must face the fact that there are consequences should I be, objectively speaking, in error…as do we all.

I disagree that she is prohibited from listening to other non-Catholic voices. Under 1917 canon law, for example, I could even attend non-Catholic religious services under certain circumstances. As for hearing non-Catholic voices, one is not likely to be able to avoid them, even if living in a Catholic ghetto in 1935. Yet, one cannot even discern whether the voice they hear is “contrary to Catholic doctrine” unless they first hear it. So I guess we disagree with regard to the real meaning of Catholic disciplinary norms as they were in 1935.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

…If a Protestant fellow begins to doubt his faith, then by this line of thinking, he ought to go to his minister, or to the anti-Catholic he knows from the Sunday service who himself came from the Catholic Church.

Perhaps, unless God calls him to act differently.

Such a person may never find the truth, because he is giving the benefit of the doubt to the veracity of his current system and entrusting himeslf to those who are biased…

I disagree. I know many who went through this same discernment process, and when they heard the answer of their pastor, they were prompted ever more certainly to become Catholic.

Nonetheless, I don’t believe salvation is a matter left only to clever arguments or culture, but is dependent upon something supernatural. You seem to be describing this as if God is absent from the process. If the voice of God sounded like any other voice, you might have a point. However, His sheep know His voice. Abraham had no doubt that it was God that commanded that he sacrifice his only begotten son. God’s voice is not simply one among many voices inside our heads. It is uniquely His, and the sheep will surely recognize it in contrast to the voices who would contend against Him.

Even though our way of knowing is imperfect, God knows the objective truth, and He is indeed guiding everyone made in his image so that they too can see it. Even if an infidel were isolated on a desert island, God would give him all that he needed to believe so as to attain eternal salvation, either by sending him a teacher or by sending him an angel.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, all of humanity are related to the Church, but in different ways (which, by the way, is echoed by Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium, 16).

“Those who are unbaptized, though not actually in the Church, are in the Church potentially. And this potentiality is rooted in two things–first and principally, in the power of Christ, which is sufficient for the salvation of the whole human race; secondly, in free-will.” (Summa Theologica, III, 8, 3).

“We must therefore consider the members of the mystical body not only as they are in act, but as they are in potentiality. Nevertheless, some are in potentiality who will never be reduced to act, and some are reduced at some time to act…Christ is the Head of all men, but diversely. For, first and principally, He is the Head of such as are united to Him by glory; secondly, of those who are actually united to Him by charity; thirdly, of those who are actually united to Him by faith; fourthly, of those who are united to Him merely in potentiality, which is not yet reduced to act, yet will be reduced to act according to Divine predestination; fifthly, of those who are united to Him in potentiality, which will never be reduced to act; such are those men existing in the world, who are not predestined, who, however, on their departure from this world, wholly cease to be members of Christ” (ibid.)

It is the power of Christ which draws mankind to Christ, to worship Him in spirit and truth. Even those practicing false religions are given sufficient “ray of truth” from God to find and bow down before Christ, just as the magi (Gk *magus, *which means “sorcerers”), by practicing their false “sorcery” were led to Christ by that truth which God gave to them. It was not that which was false about their “magi” religion that led them to Christ, but only that truth which can only be revealed by God.

Since His sheep do have the capacity to recognize the voice of God, they are all the more culpable for not following that voice.

 

[JReducation]

It just seems like a huge mess of logical inconsistency, hypocrisy, and contradiction.

There is no prohibition within the Catholic Church regarding reading the Quran or any book written by a non Catholic or even an atheist. There hasn’t been one since the 1960s.

The position of the Catholic Church is very simple, read and learn. What is not condoned is using anti-Catholic propaganda to understand Catholicism. The same is also prohibited in the opposite direction. No Catholic author may write anti-Protestant, Jewish, Islam, Orthodox or other propaganda.

Writers may write what they believe and reflect on what they have learned or how they understand something. This is not being anti anything.

In fact, the Pontifical Universities employ non Catholic theoogians to teach. Pope Benedict just named a Rabbi to the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory for his contributions to the Catholic Church. This Rabbi has been a professor of theology at two Pontifical Universities. He has taught scripture and Mystical Theology, especially courses on St. Teresa of Avila. I can find his name if you want.

If one’s inquiries lead one to read what has been written by a Protestant, the Catholic Church is not going to condemn you. No all non Catholics are anti Catholic. The Church does teach that the fulness of Revelation resides within the Catholic Church and when you come to a conflict, a Catholic must resolve it using the Catholic understanding of Revelation.

However, the Church also teaches that freedom of religion may never be impaired by anyone, not even the Church nor must religion ever be imposed, except by conscience.

Why a Catholic who leaves the Church incurs excommunication because he or she has cut himself or herself off from the temporal Church, the Church does not pass judgment on the state of that person’s soul.

The best example is Archbishop Lefebvre. The Church has never passed judgement on his soul nor does she allow Catholics to do so, one way or the other. An excommunication is just that, to be ex community or outside of the community or not in communion with the Catholic Church.

JR

 

[Lazerlike42]

There is no prohibition within the Catholic Church regarding reading the Quran or any book written by a non Catholic or even an atheist. There hasn’t been one since the 1960s.

The position of the Catholic Church is very simple, read and learn. What is not condoned is using anti-Catholic propaganda to understand Catholicism. The same is also prohibited in the opposite direction. No Catholic author may write anti-Protestant, Jewish, Islam, Orthodox or other propaganda.

Writers may write what they believe and reflect on what they have learned or how they understand something. This is not being anti anything.

In fact, the Pontifical Universities employ non Catholic theoogians to teach. Pope Benedict just named a Rabbi to the Pontifical Order of St. Gregory for his contributions to the Catholic Church. This Rabbi has been a professor of theology at two Pontifical Universities. He has taught scripture and Mystical Theology, especially courses on St. Teresa of Avila. I can find his name if you want.

If one’s inquiries lead one to read what has been written by a Protestant, the Catholic Church is not going to condemn you. No all non Catholics are anti Catholic. The Church does teach that the fulness of Revelation resides within the Catholic Church and when you come to a conflict, a Catholic must resolve it using the Catholic understanding of Revelation.

However, the Church also teaches that freedom of religion may never be impaired by anyone, not even the Church nor must religion ever be imposed, except by conscience.

Why a Catholic who leaves the Church incurs excommunication because he or she has cut himself or herself off from the temporal Church, the Church does not pass judgment on the state of that person’s soul.

The best example is Archbishop Lefebvre. The Church has never passed judgement on his soul nor does she allow Catholics to do so, one way or the other. An excommunication is just that, to be ex community or outside of the community or not in communion with the Catholic Church.

JR

I realize there aren’t any prohibitions now, but if there ever were any prohibitions (which nobody here has chosen to, or possibly could, deny) and it is inconsistent, that would still be a problem.

For example, even though the Church’s canon law doesn’t now require that all Catholics beat children, but if the Church ever did require that in it history, that would still be a problem. This is not so because the Church will have had sin in it, but because it would have bound the faithful by law to sin, which is not possible according to the principal of negative ecclesial infallibility that Dave and I mentioned.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I realize there aren’t any prohibitions now, but if there ever were any prohibitions (which nobody here has chosen to, or possibly could, deny) and it is inconsistent, that would still be a problem.

There were indeed specific prohibitions against texts identified on the Index of Prohibited Books. There are general laws even now charging us to avoid that which is contrary to Catholic faith. But as I stated, the application of these norms is misplaced if you think it meant that anything non-Catholic cannot be read by Catholics. The Index was long, but it was not that long.

These norms were not a blanket prohibition against reading anything non-Catholic. To my knowledge, there has never been any such prohibition. You would have to interpret every non-Catholic source as being seriously anti-Catholic to think that there has ever been such a prohibition. On the contrary, a formal review process was involved before a text was placed on the Index.

“…it would have bound the faithful by law to sin, which is not possible according to the principal of negative ecclesial infallibility that Dave and I mentioned.”

Prohibiting the faithful from reading, possessing, or promoting texts which have already been judged by ecclesial authority as being dangerous to the faithful cannot be considered “binding the faithful by law to sin.”

One must realize that there is no right to free speech in the absolute sense. There is no right to anything other than that which is true and good. So, there cannot be any supposed right to read or promote error. John XXIII affirmed, quoting an axiom attributed to St. Augustine, “In essentials unity, in doubtful matters liberty, in all things charity.” The “liberty” we have as Catholics does not include liberty to indulge our senses in matters which dissent with “essentials” of Catholic faith.

Leo XIII affirmed, however, that while the Church is…

"…not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice*, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil*, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good. God Himself in His providence, though infinitely good and powerful, permits evil to exist in the world, partly that greater good may not be impeded, and partly that greater evil may not ensue…it is not forbidden to imitate the Ruler of the world; and, as the authority of man is powerless to prevent every evil, it has (as St. Augustine says) to overlook and leave unpunished many things which are punished, and rightly, by Divine Providence. [Leo XIII, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas_en.html”]Libertas

, 33].

Consequently, error may be tolerated, depending upon the circumstances. That is as true today as it was in 1935.

This relates to what the Church has taught and continues to teach regarding freedom (cf. Libertas, Dignitatis Humanae). There has never been a right to unmoderated free speech, for example. There never will be. Even within the rather licentious forms of “free speech” we see in the U.S., free speech is still censured (thank God), and in my opinion should be even more censured (e.g., free porn is vice, not virtue). Why does civil and ecclesial government retain the authority to censure licentious forms of “free speech”? Because doing so promotes the “general welfare” of the society which they govern.

Now, what if I didn’t like that the U.S. censured my “free speech” and insisted that perhaps distributing child porn was well within my inalienable “rights?” Could I simply do that which was “forbidden” by law? Sure, but not without suffering the consequences. I can become a criminal, or simply throw off the “yoke” of U.S. authority and renounce my U.S. citizenship, and look for an alternative society to join. Either way, I must take responsibility for my “conscientious” dissent and live with the consequences of living contrary to the norms which govern me as a citizen.

Likewise, a Catholic in 1935 could be a “criminal” an defy canonical norm, or they could renounce their citizenship within the society of the Catholic Church and read whatever item they pleased whether it was on the Index or not. However, doing so also has consequences.

We have free choice today (as we did in 1935), but we live with the consequences of the choices we make. “I**f you be unwilling to serve the LORD, choose this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your fathers served in the region beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” (Josh 24:15).

Avoiding that which was reviewed and deemed contrary to Catholic faith as judged by our lawful superiors is not now, nor was it in 1935 harmful or dangerous to the faith. However, disciplinary infallibility does not guarantee that ecclesial norms of the past are prudent for all time and circumstances. Norms can and do change, depending upon the law-givers judgment as to whether it still serves the “common good” of the faithful.

Laws are intended for the “common good” of the faithful, but does not claim to be good for every particular circumstance. That’s why we have “dispensation” from the law. If in a particular circumstance, the letter of the law does not actually benefit the common good, the law-giver authorizes dispensation from the general law in accord with his mind and will. This authority remains with the law-giver unless delegated to subordinates. In time, the law-giver may discern that the law as written no longer serves the common good as intended. At such times, it may be prudent for the law-giver to rescind the law or change it.

We are still bound by canon law to avoid that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine. However, now we need not seek dispensation from the pope himself to read a specific text, but are given the individual responsibility to “test” or discern that which is contrary to Catholic doctrine as to whether or not it presents a serious risk to our faith.

In 1935, the Index served to do that “test” for us. That may have been practical when “books” and the reading of them was still rather novel among the general community of the faithful. However, the list of prohibited books gets rather unwieldy as more and more books contradict the Catholic faith. Something had to give, as in modern times a list of prohibited books could not be kept up to date given the proliferation of anti-Catholic texts.

Thus, a different time and culture demanded a different response in accord with Christian prudence.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Dave,

The meaning of my statement was something closer to:

I realize there aren’t any prohibitions now, but if there ever were any prohibitions (which nobody here has chosen to, or possibly could, deny) and if it were in fact inconsistent, that would still be a problem.

Now, I agree with all of what you said concerning the law and whatnot. I think the difference here is that we are dealing with the Church’s law and its effect on the consciences of the faithful. If an erroneous but invincibly so conscience dictated that a person had to read a prohibited book in order to make sure he was truloy following God, and if the ecclesiasitcal authorities refused to grant permission, then the law would be in a position of requiring the individual to violate his conscience and sin - even if not objectively, but by the principal that “whatever is not of faith is sin,” as St. Thomas also taught (I really wish I could remember where; if anyone recalls, let me know).

So far as the index is concerned, it didn’t just list specific books. It prohibited any book falling under particular categories:

In accordance with the main end of the law, paragraph 2 forbids books of apostates, heretics, schismatics, and in general all writers defending heresy or schism or undermining the very foundation of religion; paragraph 11 prohibits books falsifying the notion of “Inspiration of Holy Scripture”; paragraph 14 condemns all writings defending dueling, suicide, divorce, or representing as useful and innocuous for Church and State Freemasonry and other secret societies or maintaining errors specified by the Apostolic See [those mentioned, e.g., in the Syllabus of Pius IX (1864) or Pius X (1907)]; paragraph 12 interdicts superstitious writings in the following words: It is forbidden to publish, read or keep books teaching or recommending sorcery, soothsaying, magic, spiritism, or similar superstition things; paragraph 9 reads as follows: Books systematically (ex professo) discussing, relating or teaching obscene and immoral things are strictly prohibited; paragraph 21 says: Dailies, newspapers and journals which aim at (data opera) destroying religion and morality are interdicted not only by natural law but also by ecclesiastical prohibition. All works forbidden in the above-mentioned paragraphs may be put together in one group, viz.: irreligious, heretical, superstitious, and immoral writings.

…

A second group of prohibited books comprises all insulting writings directed against God and the Church. Regarding them paragraph 11 says: All books are forbidden that insult God or the Blessed Virgin Mary or the saints or the Catholic Church and her rites, the sacraments or the Apostolic See. In like manner all books are forbidden that aim at the defamation of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the clergy or the religious. It is hardly necessary to say that a fair historical work, for example, on an individual member of the hierarchy, of a religious order, or even on any particular order who have but disgraced their calling or the Church, is not included in paragraph 11. With this second group may also be reckoned, among the works forbidden by paragraphs 15 and 16, all novel religious pictures that deviate from the spirit and the decrees of the Church, also all works on indulgences containing spurious or falsified statements.

• newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm