P
Penny_Plain
Guest
We disagree. Thanks for presenting your perspective so honestly and clearly.
- Status
F
fix
Guest
[
****b) Second level
****c) Third Level
****d) Level 4
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=4](http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=4)
*a) Solemn definition
****b) Second level
****c) Third Level
****d) Level 4
catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=4](http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/most/getwork.cfm?worknum=4)
F
FCEGM
Guest
It is reasonable to believe divinely-established apostolic authority in the arena of its competence, i.e., faith and morals. To accept one’s own judgment in that area as if it counted more than such a divine magisterium would be to blindly obey one’s own judgment as competent, just as it would be blind obedience to follow episcopal thinking about mathematics, say, which is not the area of competence for bishops.
Further, what does “blind obedience” mean? Wouldn’t it mean that one accepts whatever an authority says whether it falls within the area of the authority or not?! Like scientists (Galileo) saying Scripture is wrong in saying the sun stopped as recorded in Joshua. Or a sociologist saying what is moral or what is not moral. And conscience is what one is aware (conscient) God’s Mind is about something. Since God reveals His Mind about faith and morals through the Magisterium, and since conscience means awareness of what God wants or doesn’t want, one is finding out what God wants in hearing the Magisterium positively teaching what is morally right or wrong. So it would be against conscience to reject that Magisterium in the very area of competence (divine teaching) for the person of Catholic faith.
For the person without Catholic faith, it could be that that person does not recognize, through no fault of his own, the voice of God’s Mind in the teaching. But it could also be that the reason why a person does not recognize the voice of God in the Magisterium is self-serving immorality of lifestyle, pride of mind which cannot conceive how one’s own judgment is wrong when it conflicts with an authority in the area of that authority’s competence, or culpable ignorance. These last three are very likely for someone brought up within the Church and knew the catechism - IOW, putting oneself through inordinate attachment to one’s own judgment (self-love and pride) as more important than the Church in matters of faith and morals. That is not conscience. That is sinful faithlessness, a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Those who disagree with articles of the Faith universally held or dogmatically defined choose their own judgment as a surer standard than God’s judgment manifested in the Church, and thus they lose Divine faith and are heretics distrusting God and God’s Church and no longer have the Catholic faith.
Further, what does “blind obedience” mean? Wouldn’t it mean that one accepts whatever an authority says whether it falls within the area of the authority or not?! Like scientists (Galileo) saying Scripture is wrong in saying the sun stopped as recorded in Joshua. Or a sociologist saying what is moral or what is not moral. And conscience is what one is aware (conscient) God’s Mind is about something. Since God reveals His Mind about faith and morals through the Magisterium, and since conscience means awareness of what God wants or doesn’t want, one is finding out what God wants in hearing the Magisterium positively teaching what is morally right or wrong. So it would be against conscience to reject that Magisterium in the very area of competence (divine teaching) for the person of Catholic faith.
For the person without Catholic faith, it could be that that person does not recognize, through no fault of his own, the voice of God’s Mind in the teaching. But it could also be that the reason why a person does not recognize the voice of God in the Magisterium is self-serving immorality of lifestyle, pride of mind which cannot conceive how one’s own judgment is wrong when it conflicts with an authority in the area of that authority’s competence, or culpable ignorance. These last three are very likely for someone brought up within the Church and knew the catechism - IOW, putting oneself through inordinate attachment to one’s own judgment (self-love and pride) as more important than the Church in matters of faith and morals. That is not conscience. That is sinful faithlessness, a sin against the Holy Spirit.
Those who disagree with articles of the Faith universally held or dogmatically defined choose their own judgment as a surer standard than God’s judgment manifested in the Church, and thus they lose Divine faith and are heretics distrusting God and God’s Church and no longer have the Catholic faith.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
Penny Plain:
Although I am a newbie, so I may be all wet. The fact you “disagree” will cause me to further investigate.
Thank you,
–Mike
Hmmm interesting. My understanding was that this issue is not a matter of opinion. It’s analogous to stating that if the speed limit is 55 MPH and a person where driving 60 MPH then it is not a matter of opinion whether that person were or were not breaking the law. It may be a matter of opinion as to whether the law in that particular zone made sense but the fact that the law was broken is a fact.
Although I am a newbie, so I may be all wet. The fact you “disagree” will cause me to further investigate.
Thank you,
–Mike
M
Mijoy2
Guest
I read this after posting my previous post. This helps put it all in perspective.
N
ncjohn
Guest
And this brings us back to my last post. One cannot lump all of these cases into one group. There are many, many reasons why people disagree, and quite frankly I would bet that very, very few of them are choosing to do so based on a belief that their individual judgment should rule over wiser minds. I would pretty much bet the farm that except for the group that just doesn’t know what they are supposed to believe for whatever reason, that most who have come to reasoned postions–whether we agree with them or not–are doing so based on both their experience and what they have learned from others whom they consider wise and credible. It just ends up being that they have found some other authority to be wiser and more credible than the Church, and there are many reasons for one to come to that point, most of which are not their fault.
I am not saying they are right; I am saying that human beings come to their conclusions based on many variable (name removed by moderator)uts and that casting them as stubborn unbelievers who just randomly decide to reject the Church based on their own arrogance is not only unfair, but puts one is a position of beiing unable to address either the cause or the result.
Further, I would advise extreme caution in using one’s own judgment to proclaim anyone a heretic. None of us can read anyone else’s heart, or the reasons for their beliefs. We may be able to say that someone’s opinions seem to put them out of communion with Church teaching, but beyond that I don’t think lay people should ever be trying to proclaim someone a heretic. For practical reasons alone, what does that labeling accomplish other than to further alienate someone and potentially push them further from God and our ability to lovingly help them? We don’t generally refer even to the Jews, Muslims, or even our separated brethren as heretics; why would we want to label one of our own struggling brothers or sisters in such a way except in very extreme cases?
Coming to “full Catholic fatih” is a long slow process that we never truly complete; we are all “unfinished symphonies” in this life. We come to our understanding at different rates and in different ways, largely based on our willingness to be open to what God has to say to us. I for one am going to pray both for my continued growth in understanding and for that of those who struggle more than I. They are welcome to walk with me and maybe together we’ll find that one big Truth as we help carry each other’s crosses.
Peace,
A
allhers
Guest
Penny, could I just ask you to give us ONE example of what you don’t believe? Or don’t understand, or that you disagree with?
(I mean, if you could just briefly explain it, perhaps we could understand better and not attack one another.) How’s that? …and sorry about being kind of sarcastic in my first post. I’m like that sometimes because I get “attacked” so much ad nauseum…(not by you, but in my personal life.) Thank you.
(I mean, if you could just briefly explain it, perhaps we could understand better and not attack one another.) How’s that? …and sorry about being kind of sarcastic in my first post. I’m like that sometimes because I get “attacked” so much ad nauseum…(not by you, but in my personal life.) Thank you.
F
fix
Guest
This sounds too sweeping. How can you prove this?
1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.** The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.**
1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. **This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
**1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.
1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.** Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscienc**e.
S
Sgt_Sweaters
Guest
Penny Plain:
Anyway, He’s given each of us an individual conscience, but we feel differently on the same things. Part of this is because at the Fall, our consciences fell too. They might be a guide, but they cannot be our measuring rod.
God bless.
Your conscience is useful in subjective matters; in objective matters, bow to authority.
Anyway, He’s given each of us an individual conscience, but we feel differently on the same things. Part of this is because at the Fall, our consciences fell too. They might be a guide, but they cannot be our measuring rod.
God bless.
C
catsrus
Guest
If I understand her position, the above quote from her post is an area on which she disagrees with The Church.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Some people’s God-given, individual consciences tell them that it’s not only acceptable, but it’s a highly positive thing to do, to have sexual relations with young children. Should they follow their conscieces?
It’s not who are THEY, it’s who is HE. When the Church speaks, it is Christ speaking through the Church. If the Church says that it’s wrong for gays to be joined in civil ceremonies, that’s not them saying it, that’s Jesus Christ saying it.
So it would be better to ask, who are you to tell Jesus Christ what is right and wrong?
N
ncjohn
Guest
I’m not exactly sure what you want me to prove fix, but I’ll try to explain a little more clearly what I mean. I fully understand the sections of the CCC you quoted, and don’t disagree with you at all about the need for properly forming our consciences. Quite frankly, I doubt that many “thinking” CC’s would disagree either.
The point I was trying to make (in my probably much too wordy way
) is that the ways we form our consciences–how we get to where you’re addressing–and what we accept as credible guides in this process, are greatly influenced by our experiences in life. The people we’re addressing here have largely had their consciences formed, rightly or wrongly, and already have made some determination of credibility that now must be addressed after the fact. How we are to do that is really what’s at issue in my mind.We all tend to gravitate toward people whom we find credible for whatever reason. It may be that you have examined their intellectual position on something and found it eminently logical. It may be that the particular person has treated you exceptionally kindly, perhaps even in a Christlike way. Or it may be simply that other people you respect perceive the person as credible and you accept their judgment, given that none of us have time or expertise to examine in detail every issue and every person that is presented in our lives. Further, usually when you find someone credible on one point, you will be more likely to project credibility on them on other issues.
Of course the opposite also tends to happen when those positions are reversed. It can often take a single misstep, a single cruel statement, or catching someone in a single lie, to destroy their credibility with you.
I think we can all agree that the Church has had its share of mistakes that have deeply hurt people, both at the historical and at the personal level. As an example, my own mother will probably never set foot in a Catholic church again because when my father died, the parish priest commented that my father had treated him rudely at some point and he didn’t want anything to do with the funeral. A Methodist minister presided at my father’s funeral although he had been Catholic from birth and had built that parish’s hall for cost on his own time.
I think we can also probably agree that there are far too many Catholics who get overzealous, in-your-face judgmental, and anything but Christlike in their treatment of fellow Catholics,especially if they sense that someone may be “less Catholc” than them. I see it in these forums all the time, and I’m sure you do too, and it pains me deeply to see this division. These kinds of situations in our lives damage credibility for the Church, and for some that credibility cannot be rebuilt.
From my experience, another major stumbling block is the whole issue of infallibility. I accept it, though there are times when it is difficult. I know of many however, who look at the Church’s history and cannot in good faith accept that very foundational concept, and naturally if you don’t accept infallibility everything else is then on the table for them. Most that I know though who reject infallibility but still want to be called Catholic, still cling to the Church’s dogmas and accept the core truths of the Church and the gospel calling. They will naturally look at the various declining levels after that though with less assent and more question, especially if it’s an area where either they have been personally hurt, or someone with credibility with them has shown them a different “option.”
I guess that’s why I keep coming back to the way we treat people in our evangelization. Taking a tender, wounded soul–which we all have–and treating it roughly is unquestionably contrary to what God calls us to, and I’m sure he suffers deeply with that soul, along with the wounded soul who is transferring their own pain along. None of us has the whole truth; none of us are able to even perfectly practice that truth we do know; and none of us are qualified to “send someone packing.” As I said before, we can only walk along side by side and help heal each other. We just need to have that bleeding Sacred Heart of Jesus for everyone.
Peace,
S
sparkle
Guest
Nancy: Don’t get caught up in a Prot. message board or forum. This is my only advice. STICK to the Church and it’s teachings. For it has indeed the Truth and nothing but.I participate in a Protestant message board. There is a really wonderful, kind non-denominational Protestant who posts there. This person attends a Catholic Church at college and recently posted this:
After attending Mass and Liturgy of the word at this particular Catholic Church this person is now under the impression that there are different “kinds” of Catholicism just like there are different kinds of Protestatism and that it’s perfectly OK if people don’t believe what the Church teaches. In fact “you’ve got to separate Rome from the Catholics themselves.” as though the two really have nothing to do with one another.
That really, really saddens me. What is the solution to rampent cafeteria Catholicism?
In Christ,
Nancy
F
fix
Guest
My point is in regard to those who claim to be in communion with the Church, but dissent. These are not a few folks. The quote further back in the thread from Pope JPII was meant specfically for those folks.
Now, I cannot examine every persons motives, but I can draw some conclusions based upon observations these past few decades.
How genuine is it when one claims they reject the authority of the Church, but claim to be faithful? We are not living on a desert island. The hot button issues are very easy to read up on and pray over. The Vatican issues all manner of documents, yet we still hear many claim this issue, or that issue, does not need to be accepted. That is disingenuous and publicly endorsing such things is not good for others souls, particularly our children. These are often voluntarily poorly formed conscinces. The know what the Church teaches, but refuse to accept it.
Should we not be honest enough to be all on the same page? I am not talking about forcing the faith on another, but I ask why would someone claim to be faithful, yet publicly reject the authority of the Church that Christ Himself speaks through?
Thses are central issues of our times precisely because all this acceptance of error and bending of the moral law has direct consequences for immortal souls. This is not some intellectual exercise, but a concrete problem that affects the entire body of Christ.
Again I quote this:
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I’m not sure I know anyone who claims to be in “full communion” while dissenting, although I certainly would not deny the possibility that they exist. Most that I know will openly admit that they are in disagreement with the Church on specific things, as Penny has often done here. The ones I know will further make that clear if they are telling someone else what they believe, although I’m sure there are those who don’t, and will admit they might be the majority.
Most of the people I know in this situation deal foundationally with the issue of infallibility, and as we know, if you disagree there everything else becomes at least open to question. Further, most that I know personally do not come to that problem through taking “little trouble” to understand. On the contrary they mostly have taken great trouble to study and understand, but cannot come to agreement on it. While I don’t want to speak for them, my understanding is that “faithful” to them is by definition accepting the dogmatic statements of Christianity, the Creed. Again, I will caution however that “them” is not a homogeneous group and any statement of generality is going to be wrong for some percentage, possibly a large percentage.
As I think you know fix, I’m not trying to be a spokesman for anyone here as I’m not really qualified for that role, and people on both sides would probably prefer I not speak for them. The only thing I’m speaking for is loving concern for all people in their struggles and a willingness to be the “face of Christ” for all whom we meet.
Peace,
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
C
Catholic4aReasn
Guest
I agree with you 100% that the Church has the Truth and nothing but. That’s exactly why I visit Protestant message boards. They often have threads devoted entirely to criticism of Catholic teaching which are nothing more than misconceptions. I feel compelled to clear them up when I see them.
In Christ,
Nancy
I
InnocentIII
Guest
Excellent post. This is indeed the central issue of our times.
P
Penny_Plain
Guest
That’s a heck of a thing to say about people you don’t even know. You can call me a lot of things, and you can call my faith a lot of things (and, thoughtfully, some of you have). Wrong, bull-headed, arrogant, whatever. Calling me and people like me “lukewarm” is silliness.
It’s like you’re just going through the Catechism and the Bible and picking out nasty terms at random.
A
allhers
Guest
Well anyway, to answer your original question, Fr. Corapi says this…“Just keep telling them the truth, and eventually it’ll sink in.”After attending Mass and Liturgy of the word at this particular Catholic Church this person is now under the impression that there are different “kinds” of Catholicism just like there are different kinds of Protestatism and that it’s perfectly OK if people don’t believe what the Church teaches. In fact “you’ve got to separate Rome from the Catholics themselves.” as though the two really have nothing to do with one another.
That really, really saddens me. What is the solution to rampent cafeteria Catholicism?
In Christ,
Nancy
- Status