How Much Disagreement Is OK in the Church?

[TMC]

Someone tried a thread on a similar topic (over in Spirituality) a week or so ago, it got a little nasty and the moderator shut it down. So of course I’m trying again.

The specific point I want to discuss is this: how much can a Catholic disagree with the Church’s teaching and remain in the Church? Certainly many, if not most, Catholics disagree with the Church’s teachings on at least some topics. Should all those people leave the Church? Are they damned if they don’t?

Both of my children, who are young adults, have some issues with the Church. I tell them that if they can say the Nicene Creed and believe it they should remain in the Church. Am I right about that? If not, is there some other list of ‘must believes’?

A lot of questions I know, but based on what I have seen in the week I have been hanging out here, a lot of people have similar questions.

I know I have no place to ask anyone here to do anything, but I will anyway. Can we discuss this important topic without calling anyone 1) stupid, 2) evil, or 3) a liar? If we can avoid those three we may be able to have a conversation.

 

[teachccd]

Someone tried a thread on a similar topic (over in Spirituality) a week or so ago, it got a little nasty and the moderator shut it down. So of course I’m trying again.

The specific point I want to discuss is this: how much can a Catholic disagree with the Church’s teaching and remain in the Church? Certainly many, if not most, Catholics disagree with the Church’s teachings on at least some topics. Should all those people leave the Church? Are they damned if they don’t?

Both of my children, who are young adults, have some issues with the Church. I tell them that if they can say the Nicene Creed and believe it they should remain in the Church. Am I right about that? If not, is there some other list of ‘must believes’?

A lot of questions I know, but based on what I have seen in the week I have been hanging out here, a lot of people have similar questions.

I know I have no place to ask anyone here to do anything, but I will anyway. Can we discuss this important topic without calling anyone 1) stupid, 2) evil, or 3) a liar? If we can avoid those three we may be able to have a conversation.

I will most definitely avoid those three. When one says that they disagree with the Church it implicitly means the teachings of the Church. This is problematic since Church teachings are proclaimed by the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church and therefore become binding doctrine which defines as our deposit of faith. This is derived from Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. To understand the Church as the Incarnate Christ, we need to recognize that when Jesus founded His Church and sent the Holy Spirit He intended His kingdom to continue until He comes again. So, from a Catholic viewpoint, to disagree with the Church would be to disagree with Christ Himself since He presents the sacramental life within the Church.

Now, if you disagree with canonical law then, while still binding, these are not doctrinal issues. There are the rubrics and other areas where in house debates take place all of the time and Catholic theology remains in the pail of orthodoxy. There are also theological opinions that does not need to be adhered to for our salvation.

If you believe, for example, that the Eucharist is merely symbolic or that mortal sin does not exist then you would be outside of Catholic teaching.

In closing I would have to ask more specifically what is the area of disagreement. If it rejects doctrine then it rejects the Church that Christ founded and would result in one being in schism. That’s my two cents. I haven’t been batting a good average on my posts today. I wonder where this one takes me???

 

[TMC]

teachccd, this is a good place to start. If I hear you correctly, you are saying that all teaching of the Church are imperative and that no doctrines of the Church can be disregarded. But I have always been told that dogmatic teachings are defined as Revealations, but that not all doctrine is dogma. This would seem to leave some room. Is all of the catechism dogma? And if so, must a Catholic that does not believe all of the Catechism reform or leave the Church?

As to specific issues, I don’t know that specifics would add to the discussion. That tends to be how these things turn south, I think. But seems to me that most the people I interact with here have a disagreement with the Church on something, whether its so-called liberals that want the Church to do something it has not done in the past, or so-called traditionalists that want to return to things the Church has left behind.

 

[Corki]

ok, I am not teachccd but, if I may …

Dogmas and doctines are both authoritative teaching regarding the faith and morals. These are firmly held over a long period of time. Some doctrines evolve and I am sure that during the evolution there have been many discussions and disagreements but they seem to have been mostly about the “how” and “why” rather than the “what”. I know it is dangerous to use specifics around here but if I can offer an example… It is doctrine that a human person is a living child of God from the moment of conception. That is doctrine, maybe even dogma. However, over the centuries there has been discussion and disagreement about when the soul enters the body. Modern science has allowed us to see exactly what happens after conception but they didn’t have that medical knowledge in the middle ages. Most people would say today that the soul is present from the moment of conception but I don’t think the Church has ever authoritatively defined that. It is still a teaching that is “under construction”. The value of the life is not dependant on the presence of the soul. The Church hasn’t defined when the soul leaves the body at the end of life either.

One must give “assent of faith” to all doctines and dogmas. You are expected to believe.

For disciplines, it is all pretty much up for discussion. This includes all kinds of liturgical issues, married priests, specifics about the sacraments (age of reception, form, preparation) etc. For these, one must give an “assent of will”. That is you have to obey them if the Church legitimately teaches them but you don’t have to believe them.

The catechism is a compilation of the current teaching of the Church. It contains dogmas, doctines and disciplines. So there are things in the Catechism that you don’t have to believe but it is still an authoritative teaching document so you couldn’t just act against what it contains.

I don’t speak for everybody but I don’t think that someone who doesn’t believe a Church teaching should leave the Church, even if it concens a doctrinal issue. But there are people who disagree, stuggle with the teaching and try to resolve the conflict. No problem. There are other people who are vocal about their disagreement, who seem to be almost proud about their dissent and who often do a great disservice to the Church by either acting in a way that causes scandal or by confusing people who are honestly seeking out authentic Catholic teaching. I have mixed feelings about the latter group.

 

[TMC]

I don’t speak for everybody but I don’t think that someone who doesn’t believe a Church teaching should leave the Church, even if it concens a doctrinal issue. But there are people who disagree, stuggle with the teaching and try to resolve the conflict. No problem. There are other people who are vocal about their disagreement, who seem to be almost proud about their dissent and who often do a great disservice to the Church by either acting in a way that causes scandal or by confusing people who are honestly seeking out authentic Catholic teaching. I have mixed feelings about the latter group.

This gets to the heart of the matter, I think. I agree that those who cause scandal or confuse others are doing a disservice. This is why I no longer teach CCD, because I believe that CCD teachers must faithful teach the Church’s teachings, but I won’t teach something I don’t believe. But if a Catholic firmly believes that a doctrine is wrong, does he not have a duty to point that out in an appropriate way and time? How else do doctrines evolve? That is why I referred to the Creed in the OP. I always figured that if I believe the Creed I’m in the right Church. I believe the Church has ‘evolved’ away from other doctrines over time. (Whether or not this is true is essentially what broke down the other thread.)

When Pope Benedict was elected a few years ago “traditional” Catholics on some forums (I didn’t post here back then) rejoiced that folks like me would be tossed out. Some even suggested that Christ would prefer a smaller Church. Now, surprise, the Church has not suddenly turned the clock back to 1914, and the threat of schism from the right now seems greater than schism from the left.

Some traditionalists want to turn back the Church’s teaching on the role of women and the laity in the Church, on the value of science in understanding creation, and on the factual inerrancy of Scripture. I have no idea if those are doctrines that are still open to evolution, but I see no harm in discussing them.

Some progressives want to move the other direction on women in the Church, and want to re-examine Church teachings on sexual issues, too. Let’s talk those out also.

In the real world people talk about these things. On forums for some reason we choose to instead rant at each other and tell people to get out of the Church. How did the Church move from the YEC beliefs of the early centuries to the acceptance of old earth theories we have today if dissenters didn’t speak up? How did any doctrines ‘evolve’? Doesn’t being a good Catholic include sharing sincerely held differences of opinion?

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’d like to touch on a question in your OP – that of whether one should “leave the Church” if one disagrees with X, Y, or Z.

No, one should not. Instead, one should reexamine why one disagrees with the Church, for it is not just one of a number of equally valid denominations – it is the Church founded by Christ and imbued with His authority, which was passed down by the Apostles.

There are teachings which are de fide – that is, all Catholics must submit to them, whether or not they understand them well enough to agree with them. One of these is what I mentioned above – Apostolic Succession. If one does not understand the Church’s position on an issue, one must submit to authority and say, “OK, I don’t get it, but I accept it”. This act of humility will often lead one to a better understanding of the issue, whereas an obstinate refusal to learn from those who know better will usually lead one away from such knowledge.

There is no reason that one should leave the Church, and to do so causes more harm than good.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Peregrino]

Someone tried a thread on a similar topic (over in Spirituality) a week or so ago, it got a little nasty and the moderator shut it down. So of course I’m trying again.

The specific point I want to discuss is this: how much can a Catholic disagree with the Church’s teaching and remain in the Church? Certainly many, if not most, Catholics disagree with the Church’s teachings on at least some topics. Should all those people leave the Church? Are they damned if they don’t?

Both of my children, who are young adults, have some issues with the Church. I tell them that if they can say the Nicene Creed and believe it they should remain in the Church. Am I right about that? If not, is there some other list of ‘must believes’?

A lot of questions I know, but based on what I have seen in the week I have been hanging out here, a lot of people have similar questions.

I know I have no place to ask anyone here to do anything, but I will anyway. Can we discuss this important topic without calling anyone 1) stupid, 2) evil, or 3) a liar? If we can avoid those three we may be able to have a conversation.

Hi TMC,

You have voiced issues that I have faced for years. I started as a catholic that (as put by Dante Alighieri above) submitted to teachings with which I was uncertain of or disagreed. Sadly, there becomes a point at which this is no longer a tenable cop out. I am an intelligent person and my knowledge, intellect, humanity and morality can only abide certain things for so long. Unfortunately, “catholicism” has little room for disagreement as you have clearly pointed out.

Many on this board would rather you hit the road than have a differing opinion. So much of the “catholic” position revolves around “authority” issues that it has made me question the very foundations of the “church”. Something strikes me as instinctually incorrect when the “faith of Jesus” resorts to the stick as a default position. Seems to me that this is more of a man-made position than anything else. I practice my faith within the catholic framework because I am comfortable with that framework. Many, many catholics feel this same way, some are more explicit in their examination than others.

I do believe that the church has great moral virtue, not because of its “authority” but by its continuity. It never fails to make me laugh here when “solid catholics” on the board disagree with the bishops (who by virtue of apostolic succession and all the other authority dogmas that are flown around here-the “stick”) when the bishop’s actions and moral pronouncements disagree with their own subjective political agendas. Many here obviously know better than the bishops and their “authority”…

I think your “creed standard” of catholicism is a good one; I doubt it will get much mileage around here. Personally, I remain silent for some parts of the creed… Sorry Corki.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Hi TMC,

You have voiced issues that I have faced for years. I started as a catholic that (as put by Dante Alighieri above) submitted to teachings with which I was uncertain of or disagreed. Sadly, there becomes a point at which this is no longer a tenable cop out.

That’s a pretty dismissive statement. It’s not a “cop out” if you start from the position that the Church is, in fact, the Church that Jesus founded and promised His guidance and protection from error – both of which can be found in Scripture, by the way.

I am an intelligent person and my knowledge, intellect, humanity and morality can only abide certain things for so long. Unfortunately, “catholicism” has little room for disagreement as you have clearly pointed out.

Again, if the Church is the one founded by Christ, then it stands to reason that it teaches the Truth. If something is objectively true, how could there be room to disagree?

Many on this board would rather you hit the road than have a differing opinion. So much of the “catholic” position revolves around “authority” issues that it has made me question the very foundations of the “church”. Something strikes me as instinctually incorrect when the “faith of Jesus” resorts to the stick as a default position. Seems to me that this is more of a man-made position than anything else. I practice my faith within the catholic framework because I am comfortable with that framework. Many, many catholics feel this same way, some are more explicit in their examination than others.

You make a pretty broad accusation there, especially given what I said in my previous post. There is no reason to leave the Church.

Furthermore, your comment that the “faith of Jesus resorts to the stick” is a bit offensive – would you care to elaborate with some specific examples?

You are correct in one regard: the idea that one should leave the Church if one disagrees is a man-made position – thankfully, it isn’t the position of the Church.

I do believe that the church has great moral virtue, not because of its “authority” but by its continuity. It never fails to make me laugh here when “solid catholics” on the board disagree with the bishops (who by virtue of apostolic succession and all the other authority dogmas that are flown around here-the “stick”) when the bishop’s actions and moral pronouncements disagree with their own subjective political agendas. Many here obviously know better than the bishops and their “authority”…

You seem to be patting yourself on the back for your skepticism because you have seen some Catholics fail to respect the authority of the Church, but you are neglecting the fact that whether the Church is the true Church is not determined by the behavior of its members.

True, there are Catholics who don’t do as they should. This does not diminish the fact that there is a way they should behave.

I think your “creed standard” of catholicism is a good one; I doubt it will get much mileage around here. Personally, I remain silent for some parts of the creed… Sorry Corki.

I agree that the “Creed standard” is useful – it neatly sums up the essential beliefs of the Church. Key among them is the “one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic church” bit, though, which I would expect is one of the parts during which you are silent.

Here’s the thing, though: why are you silent? The Catholic faith is not a buffet; it’s all or nothing. I urge you to reexamine your disagreements – in particular that over the authority of the Church – and determine why you feel compelled to resist the Truth.

The Church is not about beating people into submission. Her mission on earth is to be the “pillar and ground of truth”; to lead men into “all truth”; to “feed [His] sheep”. Jesus gave us the Church as an avenue of His grace, but He also exhorted us to obey His commandments if we love Him, and he placed His authority on earth in the Church when he gave it the power “to bind and loose” and to forgive sins in His name.

We are not the Borg, but resistance is futile.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Peregrino]

Unfortunately, to defend my position is to derail this thread and it appears that TMC is wanting this issue discussed.

Just briefly Dante, most of your comments focus on the Catholic Church being the “Church that Jesus founded”. It is this assumption (and its claim to represent the “faith of Jesus”) that I question. Especially given its ultimate resort to “authority” on any issue of discussion.

I don’t resist the Truth, I merely question the church’s “truth”.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Unfortunately, to defend my position is to derail this thread and it appears that TMC is wanting this issue discussed.

Just briefly Dante, most of your comments focus on the Catholic Church being the “Church that Jesus founded”. It is this assumption (and its claim to represent the “faith of Jesus”) that I question. Especially given its ultimate resort to “authority” on any issue of discussion.

I don’t resist the Truth, I merely question the church’s “truth”.

If you’re not willing to back up what you say, then I would ask that, out of charity, you not take potshots at the Church and then duck out of an argument when someone calls you on it.

If you sincerely doubt the authority of the Church, common sense (not to mention moral sense) ought to compel you to examine that – not belittle it.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Peregrino]

If you’re not willing to back up what you say, then I would ask that, out of charity, you not take potshots at the Church and then duck out of an argument when someone calls you on it.

If you sincerely doubt the authority of the Church, common sense (not to mention moral sense) ought to compel you to examine that – not belittle it.

Peace,
Dante

I have absolutely no problem backing up my opinion. Out of charity for TMC, I was trying to avoid derailing this thread. However, you make my point for me in a very succinct way given that “disagreeing with the church is to belittle its authority”. That is the problem; for the CC, “authority” seems to be more important than following Jesus and worshipping God. Ultimately, IMHO, it is a misplaced set of man-made priorities. Of course you will say that to give obediance to the CC is to obey God. That is a rather convenient claim. I really don’t believe that Jesus intended to start a whole new religion; to be perfectly honest, I can’t see in anyway how he abrogated the Judaism of his day.

I have examined the authority issue in great detail, and I find most of the church’s authority claims lacking in objective evidence. Assenting to those claims on the basis of faith is no problem, I do not demean or belittle anyone who does so-I did so for several years. However, that is no longer an option for me.

 

[Genesis315]

As St. Augustine said, where there is unity there is virtue. Likewise, unity is the sign of love–our model being the Holy Trinity.

St. Paul commands us to be of one mind.

 

[TMC]

OK, I don’t want to derail this thread either, but I guess this topic is as good a one to use to explore this issue as any:

Again, if the Church is the one founded by Christ, then it stands to reason that it teaches the Truth. If something is objectively true, how could there be room to disagree?

This is said a lot on this forum and elsewhere. I don’t understand its logic. There is a pretty big gap between “this Church is the one founded by Christ” which I believe and “it teaches the Truth”, unless “Truth” is given a pretty narrow reading.

The fact that Christ founded the Church does not of itself presuppose that ALL of the Church’s teachings are correct. I understand the basics of the doctrine of infallibility, the Church will not err in really important issue because the Holy Spirit won’t allow that.

Let me start by pointing out that I have no problem with the theory of infallibilty, and I do not deny the doctrine. But it seems that the Church has only attached the label of “infallible” to a small amount of the teachings. Most of this is contained within the Creed, except for some of the infallible Marian doctrines.

But clearly many of the Church’s other teachings have changed over the years. I know the response to this is that nothing has changed that was really important, but I feel like there is some post hoc rationalization built into that. I.e. – how do we know that wasn’t really a doctrine of the Church? Because they changed it. I’m guessing people thought things like the factual inerrancy of Scripture, Limbo, and so on were pretty important when they were still being taught.

The Church may be guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is run day to day and century to century by very fallible humans. It makes mistakes, sometime pretty big mistakes. The current Pope has said, for example, that it would be a mistake to think that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope, as we have had Popes the Holy Spirit would not have picked. I don’t know who he was referring to, but Honorius I I was later denounced by the Sixth General Council for his part in spreading the Monothelite Heresy.

So these brings me back around to my original point. The Church has stood firm by the Nicene Creed. So do I. The Church has changed some of its other teaching through the years, as our understanding has improved and evolved. So shouldn’t faithful Catholics, once they have studied and learned enough to understand the doctrines and know whether they truly disagree with them, voice their disagreements?

If you agree that there is a line to draw but think the Nicene Creed is not the right line to draw, what is the line? If you think that Catholics have no business line drawing, how do you explain the development of our faith through the centuries?

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

For what it is worth, here is my opinion.
You may doubt the teaching of the church, and still remain a member, though your faith may be imperfect.
You may indeed believe that some of the Church’s teachings are in error, for though we accept that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, free will permits this guidance to be set aside.
You may indeed express personal opinions contrary to Church teaching, provided that you admit them to be your personal opinions.
However, you may not teach as fact that which is contrary to Church teaching, for that is Heresy, and heresy leads to schism, which is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit.

Remember, charity is sometimes mistaken.
Consider the child, who seeing a sparrow, dead of starvation in the depth of winter, complaining of the pity that food was not put out to save it, saying: “Father, can we not prevent sparrows from dying thus in winter?”
The child’s father sighs and answers: “Yes son we can. Here is a 12 gauge. Go shoot them in summer.”

 

[Peregrino]

The Church may be guided by the Holy Spirit, but it is run day to day and century to century by very fallible humans. It makes mistakes, sometime pretty big mistakes. The current Pope has said, for example, that it would be a mistake to think that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope, as we have had Popes the Holy Spirit would not have picked. I don’t know who he was referring to, but Honorius I I was later denounced by the Sixth General Council for his part in spreading the Monothelite Heresy.

Some of the Borgia popes probably fall into this category…

So these brings me back around to my original point. The Church has stood firm by the Nicene Creed. So do I. The Church has changed some of its other teaching through the years, as our understanding has improved and evolved. So shouldn’t faithful Catholics, once they have studied and learned enough to understand the doctrines and know whether they truly disagree with them, voice their disagreements?

If you agree that there is a line to draw but think the Nicene Creed is not the right line to draw, what is the line? If you think that Catholics have no business line drawing, how do you explain the development of our faith through the centuries?

What is the point of drawing a line? God will sort it out, God has done so since before the CC… The church doesn’t even proclaim that anyone is in hell. Why? Because of God’s mercy. Do you honestly believe that failing to assent to whatever convoluted doctrine of the church you choose will land you in hell? If it is possible for a merciful God to forgive a killer, is it conceivable that a merciful God will forgive someone using their God given faculties?

Wait, my bad. Only the church can tell you what “right use” of those faculties really consists of…what a sad, vicious circle…lol.

 

[Corki]

This gets to the heart of the matter, I think. I agree that those who cause scandal or confuse others are doing a disservice. This is why I no longer teach CCD, because I believe that CCD teachers must faithful teach the Church’s teachings, but I won’t teach something I don’t believe. But if a Catholic firmly believes that a doctrine is wrong, does he not have a duty to point that out in an appropriate way and time? How else do doctrines evolve?

I think it makes a difference who you are talking to about it.

Yes, doctrines do evolve and theologians have great discussions where they push the envelope. But it is one thing to have discussions with other theologians or with your priest/spiritual advisor or even to bring up disagreement in class where you are the student - there to learn. By doing that, you may find that when you work the idea out with others you come to understand what the Church teaches. If not, in any case, you are conducting an honest intellectual investigation. It is quite another to voice your dissent or difference of opinion to fellow parishioners, to class mates, to your family etc. It is an exercise in prudence, in those situations, to keep your views private.

I am glad that you did not let your CCE students know of your disagreement with the Church. I wish I had teachers as prudent and wise as you.

 

[AndyF]

TMC:

I concur with Teachccd and Corki.

One’s frame of mind should be receptive and open. He should take advice from the clergy and appointed people for that purpose, such has Catholic Universities and Colleges and not take any printed or posted material without researching it’s truth or prior referal.

Attitude is important. One should be in a pious and respecting frame of mind. There are times that a dogma may be very difficult to accept, this is when we must accept it and reserve judgement, and pocket the issue for further enlightenment. Taking a final rejecting stance is not an option, but you can place it aside until inspiration makes it more pallatable, while abiding by it’s precepts.

Not entering into debate with the teacher is important, but you can get several opinions and if they conflict the majority is probably right, all the same the e-Catechism is a good reference at:.

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Try to avoid the antagonistic heresy police. It takes a lot of work to become a true heretic. Most authors agree that the offence must be consummated, i.e. complete and perfected in its kind *in genere suo. *But a valid warning received could be an alert flag to back off, so caution in staunch beliefs is prudent.

See my post on “God gave us Reason…” at :

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2875569#poststop

for more information.

AndyF

 

[brianwalden]

I don’t know about when to leave the Church or not. I think that’s a personal decision.

But one thing I do feel very strongly about is that if your disagreements with the Church are such that by the Church’s standards you are not eligible to receive communion, you should not present yourself for communion at Mass. This is a basic issue of respect. Most Catholics if they went to another non-Catholic church with a friend or something would obey that church’s rules even if they did not agree with them. Yet so many Catholics do not obey their own Church’s rules. It’s absolutely rude and disrespectful.

Also to Peregrino said he/she leaves out words when he/she recites the Creed (sorry I don’t know your sex) - in my opinion this is lying. The Creed is a public profession of faith. If you can’t say it in good conscience stay seated and don’t say it. But to leave out words while giving people the impression that you’re in fact professing the entire Creed is wrong. You might as well be saying it with your hands tied behind your back.

 

[teachccd]

Hi TMC,

I do believe that the church has great moral virtue, not because of its “authority” but by its continuity.

Can you explain that statement? If there is no initial authority then what defines this continuity? Doesn’t someone have to oversee this “continuity” in order for it not to become disordered?? Give me an example of any secular organization where continuity exists without leadership…I’m a little …teachccd

 

[Peregrino]

Also to Peregrino said he/she leaves out words when he/she recites the Creed (sorry I don’t know your sex) - in my opinion this is lying. The Creed is a public profession of faith. If you can’t say it in good conscience stay seated and don’t say it. But to leave out words while giving people the impression that you’re in fact professing the entire Creed is wrong. You might as well be saying it with your hands tied behind your back.

Is the creed said as an exercise in public profession or a reminder of doctrine? It the creed said aloud so other people “know that you are on the same page with them?” I don’t think so. I think it would be more of a lie to say the creed aloud and not believe it. I think that my purposeful ommision is more honest than what you are suggesting.