How much can a Catholic disagree with the Church?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TimothyIgnatius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
PRmerger said:
What do you mean, “in good standing”?

Again, the wrong question to ask for any Christian.

You wouldn’t want your wife to ask you, “Does my marriage to you depend upon my complete, unquestionable faithfulness to you? What can I that I like, that wouldn’t estrange me from you? Can I go out with the girls 3 days a week, or only 2 days? Can I take care of the children until 5pm, then give them to you to raise? Will that still make me a wife in good standing with you?”

:nope:
Click to expand...
Küng, The Catholic Church: A Short History (2002), Introduction, p. xviii: “In 1979 I then had personal experience of the Inquisition under another pope. My permission to teach was withdrawn by the church, but nevertheless I retained my chair and my institute (which was separated from the Catholic faculty). For two further decades I remained unswervingly faithful to my church in critical loyalty, and to the present day I have remained professor of ecumenical theology and a Catholic priest in good standing. I affirm the papacy for the Catholic Church, but at the same time indefatigably call for a radical reform of it in accordance with the criterion of the gospel.”

He has not been excommunicated, nor had an anathema placed on him. He has worked personally with both Pope John Paul II and current Pope Benedict throughout the years, most notably at the second vatican council.

What if I posed my concerns in a different light; instead of papal infallibility with regard to the Churches dogma and doctrines being the focal point, the main reason for my uncomfortableness is some failures of the Churches actions to properly reflect what is being taught? Can I remain faithful to the teachings and disagree with some of the Church’s actions?

Once again, many thanks to James and PR and all the contributors to this thread. I couldn’t have asked for a more reasonable and insightful responses.
 
JRKH said:
Allow me to take a slightly different approach to this matter and say that you may disagree with the Church to the extent that your properly formed conscience dictates.
This means that before you determine to disagree with the Church it is necessary that you first learn what the Church teaches and why. That is to form your mind to the mind of the Church. Then - and only then - is it reasonable for a Catholic to consider whether they can - in good conscience - reject the teaching.

The Catechism discusses the matter of conscience HERE.

That said…there are two things that must be expressed as critical here…things relating to points mentioned in your post.m
  1. Infallibility…In choosing to reject a clear teaching of the Church on faith and morals, one is placing their own judgement - their own “infallibility” above that of the Church in her magisterium. This is a dangerous thing that needs to be carefully and soberly considered before rejecting any teaching.
  2. Teaching…Even if you should, in all good conscience, determine to reject or modify or act against some teaching of the Church, it is necessary that you NOT teach others to do the same. Those who teach are held to a much higher standard…and Jesus had dire warnings for those who lead others astray.
    Instead, as a Catholic, it is good and necessary that we uphold the Church and her teachings in our relations with others.
Finally - I would offer one additional point. Very often I hear people talk of these things as if there is only two options - Agree or disagree - They seem to forget a third option…humble acceptance.
Humble acceptance does not require me to make the decision. As a Catholic, I begin from a point of acceptance. Thus, in matters I have not studied and/or don’t fully understand, the burden of proof lies with on the side of “disbelief”…In other words, if a doctrine cannot be clearly proven wrong then I assume it to be right.
After all - why would I be Catholic if I did not think the Church to be instituted of Christ and Spirit guided? Why should I remain Catholic, if I feel that the Church has to prove to ME before I believe…
And who am I to require this of my God and His Church…

Just some thoughts…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
*James I really appreciate your response. What many of us in this “democratic” world like to do is to create a god in our own image and likeness. Obeidance and being in full communion with the teachings of the Church is considered gullible!! You need to know the teachings of the Church before you can consider yourself qualified to question.

But then we need to remember that Jesus said he would send us the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth and JESUS KEPT HIS PROMISE!!

Cinette*
 
I’ve tried to avoid personal gripes or issues, but in light of my last post I think I’d be obliged to give at least one example to more clearly express myself.

Why does the Church allocate resources to stop the spread of laws that protect homosexual rights when those resources and efforts could be used for better purposes? If God has given us free will, then it should be the determination of the individual whether or not they want to turn away from God through sin. I don’t condone homosexual behavior (especially in a family setting; the perspective of both sexes is so essential), but they should be given rights through their governments that protect them against discrimination and the Church should not promote anything that purports violence or discriminatory behavior against them. Moreover, it saddens me to see the Church put so much effort into this social issue when there are much more pertinent issues that it never addresses. A huge one is the reform of drug laws in the United States and worldwide. As Catholics we are called to adhere to the just laws of our country, but anybody educated on this issue would realize the law is completely unjust and is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ.

Would Jesus really condone sending people who use drugs to jail? Aren’t these people sick and in need of great help? Why do we treat this issue as a criminal one instead of a medical one? Moreover, the repercussive damages to societies caused by these policies are far, far, FAR greater than individual drug use could ever be. Drug cartel violence, police corruption, perpetual institutionalized racism, and other evils are all the side effect of these policies, not the drugs themselves. I feel that this is an issue many are incredibly unaware and uneducated of; the prisons of this country (US) are filled to the brim with non-violent drug offenders, and then when they are released they can’t get a job because of their record. And then people wonder why they have problems or revert back to drug use. I’m not trying to say that drug use isn’t wrong or harmful, but rather that the way we approach it is many times more damaging to our society and that Catholics and the Church should be putting more pressure on government to find a more suitable solution to this social health problem then the inherently evil system in place now.

To tie this back into the thread (instead of diverting it to this issue, which is a thread for the social justice page), is it wrong to find disagreement not with Church teachings but with the actions they choose to take to reflect these teachings?
 
TimothyIgnatius said:
What if I posed my concerns in a different light; instead of papal infallibility with regard to the Churches dogma and doctrines being the focal point, the main reason for my uncomfortableness is some failures of the Churches actions to properly reflect what is being taught? Can I remain faithful to the teachings and disagree with some of the Church’s actions?
Click to expand...
In response to this specific question - Yes it is OK to be uncomfortable with actions that do not accurately reflect what is taught.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
Thank you most kindly.

Amen to this…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
JRKH said:
Thank you most kindly.

Amen to this…

Peace
James
Click to expand...
James, would you be so kind as to lend me your stance/opinion/learned experience on the issue of disagreeing with Church actions as opposed to disagreeing with Church teachings/papal infallibility? You have been an immense help and I value your words greatly. Of course, feel no obligation, you’ve already been a great help.

EDIT - You beat me to the punch. Thanks so much 😃
 
PRmerger said:
One other thought: everything you know about Christ comes from the Church. So if you believe, say, that our sins are forgiven because of Christ, it’s because the Church told you this.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Everything we know about Christ etc comes from scripture. The Bible.

If you mean by the ‘Church’ as in christ himself then that is correct. If you mean ‘Man’ as in ‘The physical church’ then you are wrong.
 
TimothyIgnatius said:
I’ve tried to avoid personal gripes or issues, but in light of my last post I think I’d be obliged to give at least one example to more clearly express myself.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.
Why does the Church allocate resources to stop the spread of laws that protect homosexual rights when those resources and efforts could be used for better purposes? If God has given us free will, then it should be the determination of the individual whether or not they want to turn away from God through sin. I don’t condone homosexual behavior (especially in a family setting; the perspective of both sexes is so essential), but they should be given rights through their governments that protect them against discrimination and the Church should not promote anything that purports violence or discriminatory behavior against them.
Click to expand...
First - the Church does not promote or condone violence or discrimination against homosexual people.
Second - to the matter of laws. The Church and the faithful in the U.S. are doing nothing more than what is expected in this democratic republic of ours. They are making their views and concerns known and attempting to effect the legislative process just as those on the other side of the issue are doing.
Should the Church, and church, be excluded from the public debate on these matters that effect the moral norms of society?

But - certainly you can disagree with what you perceive as being a less than optimal allocation of resources.
Moreover, it saddens me to see the Church put so much effort into this social issue when there are much more pertinent issues that it never addresses. A huge one is the reform of drug laws in the United States and worldwide. As Catholics we are called to adhere to the just laws of our country, but anybody educated on this issue would realize the law is completely unjust and is in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ.
Click to expand...
You may have a very good point here…I don’t know…as I am not up on the Church’s efforts in this area.
I am not clear on how the current laws are in direct opposition to the teachings of Christ…but as you say this is a subject for the social justice forum.
To tie this back into the thread (instead of diverting it to this issue, which is a thread for the social justice page), is it wrong to find disagreement not with Church teachings but with the actions they choose to take to reflect these teachings?
Click to expand...
Bottom line is yes…and you are welcome to make your feelings known to your bishop, the USCCB and even the Vatican. You are also perfectly free to join or even start ministries designed to address these matters.

Hope this helps

Peace
James
 
ajecphotos said:
I disagree. Everything we know about Christ etc comes from scripture. The Bible
Click to expand...
Where do you think the Bible came from, aje? It certainly did not fall down from the sky, leather bound, with the table of contents listing 27 books of the New Testament. 🙂

And what came first–the Bible, or the Catholic Church?
 
ajecphotos said:
I disagree. Everything we know about Christ etc comes from scripture. The Bible.
Click to expand...
Incidentally, where in the Bible does it tell you that the canon of Scripture is closed?

That comes from Tradition, not the Bible.

And where in the Bible does it tell you that revelation has ended with the death of the last apostle?

That comes from Tradition, not the Bible as well.
 
ajecphotos said:
I disagree. Everything we know about Christ etc comes from scripture. The Bible.

If you mean by the ‘Church’ as in christ himself then that is correct. If you mean ‘Man’ as in ‘The physical church’ then you are wrong.
Click to expand...
Please quit peddling heresy.
 
Heresy!

Not Heresy.

After a little thought i agree that the NT came about because of Christ and he is the church. My mistake there. Sorry. I read what PRmerger said and obviously i got it wrong! Sorry.
 
ajecphotos said:
Everything we know about Christ comes from the NT. How come that is heresy?
Click to expand...
If I may jump in…
It is more accurate to say that everything we know about Christ comes from the Church because…
  1. We have the NT from the Church…
  2. The Church has had to clarify specific points about Christ due to various heresies - the founders of which had access to the same scriptures that we do.
Even today there are those who read the NT and deny the ancient truths about Christ.

So - it is dangerous to separate the NT from the Church…

Peace
James
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top