How do we know what is true about our faith?

[marcsababa]

If we Catholics are capable of having such great lengthy rip-roaring irresolvable discussions (boy the synagogue must be 100 times as fun!!!) then what the heck is stopping us from splintering away?

I just read Dr. Bombay’s post explaining the limitations in the authoritativeness of the Catechism. I had thought that the CCC was as authoritative as the bible and the Canon law.

How can we have two permanently opposing parties in so many of our discussions. My favourite ones seem to end in two types of traditionalists sitting on separate sides: pro-Bishop Lefebvrists and those who, though they do not dislike the man, would not attend SSPX masses and worry about those who do.

I DO NOT WANT ANOTHER DISCUSSION ON THE SAME LINES.

I also do not want to have one side point a finger at the other side saying that they are not budging because they are ignorant, illogical or otherwise faulty.

Now what I want to know is where we all meet. I mean where is our common ground. I used to think the following summed up wherein lay the particulars of or faith:

1. the creed
2. the bible
3. I used to think the term “teachings of the Church” summed up the rest of this list, but it seems that around here, the difference between what is a teaching and merely something to be debated is not clear.

Is this clear or does somebody have a better way of wording my question?

 

[Dr.Bombay]

Since my name has been taken in vain, allow me to clarify what I said about the catechism.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is indeed authoritative insofar as it repeats previously defined infallible dogmas. Insofar as it proposes novel doctrines for belief…not so much.

I object particularly to the Catechism’s relativist attitude toward the grave sin of masturbation. In 2352, we read:

"To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability."

Which implicitly denies the gravity of the sin and, indeed, seems to say that it may not be a sin at all.

Then there’s the Catechism’s dismissal of the Church’s long-standing teaching that the state has a right to execute criminals. In 2267, we read:

**“Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity ‘are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.’”

**In both cases, the traditional Church teaching is affirmed, then a qualifying paragraph is added that directly contradicts that teaching. The Catechism giveth. The Catechism taketh away.

That’s all I meant. Now carry on with your discussion amongst yourselves.

 

[marcsababa]

SO according to my understanding of Dr. Bombay’s reply perhaps I can conclude that the source of the teachings of the church does include the CCC, but would include a careful interpretation of the “modern” interpretations in the new version of the CCC.

AN example of a hasty interpretation of the CCC might be found in DR. Bombay’s response: He points to two paragraphs from the CCC that provide additional insight into the teachings and loving nature of the Church. Let us take the example of the teaching on masturbation: the church points out that in some cases the masturbating person can not be considered culpable of a sin for reasons the reasons already cited in Dr. Bombay’s quote of the CCC.

"one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability."

.

This seems to have been added for pastoral purposes. Perhaps past experience of the application of this particular teaching has lead the Church in all its wisdom to add a note of gentleness.

This being said we are still called to instruct the ignorant. If for example a young man is in our care we are not to condemn him and perhaps threaten him with damnation when it is found that he is undertaking the said activity. We are to gently instruct him as to the truth. If the said young man is mentally/developmentally immature/ handicapped then perhaps many admonitions are necessary and he may never entirely cease the habit in spite of being instructed to the contrary. BUT we are not to condemn him and damn him to hell because as the CCC gently points out:

"one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability."

.

SO perhaps the result of my question was to pick an argument with somebody who likes to quibble with what I was taught are authoritative sources of the authoritative teachings of the Church.

Thank you for responding Dr. Bombay I appreciate your arguments. I know you are thoughtful and a lover of the truth. I consider you an ally in my journey to a greater understanding of our faith and the teachings of our Church.

 

[Liberian]

I object particularly to the Catechism’s relativist attitude toward the grave sin of masturbation. In 2352, we read:

"To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability."

Which implicitly denies the gravity of the sin and, indeed, seems to say that it may not be a sin at all.

Dr. Bombay,

If I may speak in defense of the Catechism, it is simply recognizing the requirement that to be a sin, an action must be freely chosen and recognized as sinful. Certainly the matter is grave, and the person doing the action will have to live with the temporal consequences of doing something that is gravely wrong, but if the person does not recognize it as sinful then there is no element of rebellion against God in the action.

• Liberian

 

[Dr.Bombay]

It is not charity to confirm someone in their sin. Most priests are more than capable of taking a pastoral approach to the sin of self abuse, or any other sin for that matter. That’s to be dealt with on a one-on-one basis.

But to have an officially promulgated Church document take a position that lessens or eliminates the gravity of a sin that has been considered grave for millenia is, in my opinion, scandalous. The average person reading that could easily conclude that it isn’t really a sin at all. That’s the problem I have. You can have many people read this on their own and make their own judgement about its interpretation and thereby continue in this disordered habit.

The Catechism isn’t supposed to be pastoral. That’s the priest’s job. The Catechism is supposed to proclaim the Truth. Period.

 

[Damascus]

Cant you just rip the pages out that you dont like? I have asked people that on this forum before and they seem to think its just fine and dandy to do so.

 

[marcsababa]

Cant you just rip the pages out that you dont like? I have asked people that on this forum before and they seem to think its just fine and dandy to do so.

Pfuj!! ripping a book!! No way, that is picking and choosing what you like. Dr. Bombay is taking the far nobler stance of looking at the whole CCC and saying that interpretations of the CCC of the teachings of the Church can be misconstrued by some and there for the CCC is not his source of choice for the teachings of the Church.

I must note however that he did not indicate what his source of choice is for the teachings of the church.This is the purpose of my intial question. He cannot rely on merely his own interpretation of the CCC, he must be relying on something.

However I do not agree with the rejection of the CCC’s gentleness. I am impatient by nature and tend to jump to quick conclusions. I need adminthions like the one in the CCC that we are discussing to help me slow down and consider if the person I am about to beat up in my mind or verbally is in fact culpable.

Dr. Bombay you fault the CCC by using words that could be misconstrued to mean that a sin is not a sin. But the CCC does say that masturbation is a sin. It describes why it is a sin. If somebody wants to ignore that then they are culpable. They are choosing to ignore it and the CCC is in no way to be faulted for that.

I think that perhaps a caregiver dealing with admonishing someone under their care for masturbating needs to know the gentle part that you object to.

For example: It is actually nice that you pointed it out because only yesterday did I ask my husband how we will deal with talking about this with our children once the time comes. The section of the CCC that you find so objectionable allows me to not be horrified that my child may undertake such a sinful activity. It allows me to be able to instruct my child lovingly that this sort of pleasure is wrong and out of place. I remember hearing about people who would tell their kids that their “p…s” (I won’t spell it out in case their is a screener) will turn black and fall off. I can imagine that in the past caregivers had overreacted in admonishing someone who commited this sin. Now, do you think a little boy would react better to Mommy sayng “Honey what you are doing is wrong becasue of such and such.”

Or do you think Mommy should be absolutely horrified that her little Peter is doing such a horrific sinful act and before marching him off to Father for confession she threatens him with hellfire an damnation.