If I don't believe every single sentence in the Catechism, am I still Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter gwahicks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gwahicks

Guest
My girlfriend is Protestant, and she has been considering joining the Catholic Church. But in reading the Catechism, she has come across some things that she is either skeptical about or just can’t buy into. I would of course love for her to become Catholic, and my response has always been, “There are plenty of Catholics who don’t subscribe to every single teaching of the Catholic Church.” I tried to convey that Catholicism is much more “big tent” than Protestantism, where if you have any disagreement, you just go form your own church or denomination.

Her response to my statement was, “If you don’t believe everything in the Catechism, and you choose to believe some things but not others, isn’t that just being Protestant?” I said to her, “So you think a Catholic has to accept everything in the Catechism – all 3,000 paragraphs – or they’re not a Catholic?” Her answer was basically “yes” – otherwise, you might as well be Protestant and pick and choose from what you believe in based on your own beliefs. Thus, she is having trouble signing on to the Catholic Church, because her thinking is that you have to accept every single thing in the Catechism. Otherwise, why join, as opposed to having your own personal faith that borrows many, if not most, of those beliefs but excludes others?

I don’t really have any response to this, so I would love to hear others’ thoughts. There are lots of Catholics out there who disagree with the Church in a few or a number of areas, but they still are proud to align with the Church and call them Catholics. Are they just deluding themselves? If there is a single sentence in the Catechism that one doesn’t accept, does that prohibit being Catholic? If not, how much is one allowed to disagree with or not accept before losing all claim to being Catholic?
 
Let me ask you this.

How can one claim to be a Catholic yet not hold to what the Catholic Church Teaches?

There are many issues where we are free to disagree and to have different opinions but there are some issues where to not agree is to separate oneself from the Church.

These would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis, there is no blanket statement that can be given to this question you ask.\

Some of what is in the Catechism is required to a Catholic, some we may disagree on.
 
Your girlfriend is very astute.

There is a principle in Catholicism called the Hierarchy of Truth. This does not mean that some things are optional or subjective, that you can pick the things you do like and throw out the things you don’t like. It acknowledges that while they are in fact true, they are not central points of the gospel message. This principle is only a foundation for Catholics to dialog with non-Catholics.

If you *choose *to disregard **one **thing the Catholic church teaches because you don’t agree, or you think it’s dated, or wrong, then you are without a doubt saying that the Church is not infallible in it’s teachings on faith and morals. This means the Church can err or propagate error. Then you have to question whether anything at all the Catholic Church teaches is true. Do you see where this is going? Your girlfriend is right because it effectively leads to Protestantism.

So, my suggestion here is to take her questions and concerns seriously. If you do not know how to answer these questions you can both investigate the answers. You can find out why the Church teaches/believes the point to be true. You may find that this point of contention with a particular belief isn’t really a problem at all because you misinterpreted what the Church actually believes.
 
When I started studying the Catholic faith, I was very liberal, and had some problems accepting some of the teachings. I recommend getting the New Catholic Answer Bible because it has 88 teachings of the Church, and for each teaching scripture is cited, and is also related to the Catechism. Since I was atheist and later agnostic, I was used to running my own spiritual identity. I realized that since I truly wanted to be Catholic, I needed to find a way to align my beliefs with the Church. The first part was admitting to myself that the Church knows better than I do. I haven’t had 2000 years of tradition and study to back my opinions. Next for everything I find that I have trouble with, I consult the cited scripture and read commentary. As I go along, I find that it is not difficult to abide and believe in the teachings of the Church because every teaching of the church has a reason behind it. The Catholic Church has an answer for my every why and a reason for every answer. Definitely talk to a priest if you have questions…believe me they’ve heard it all.
 
When you were 3 years old and wanted to eat candy all day long, you thought you parents were mean and small minded and just plain wrong!

You were immature and ignorant of the Truth.

**We can question and not understand teachings, but we a re called to have Faith, to be obedient and trust what Jesus tells us.
**
Pray, study and be humble. If you disagree you are probably misinformed and need to open your heart, no matter how difficult.

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

mark
 
There are aome good answers above. I would just add this.

When one reads through the teachings in the Catechism We can:
Embrace them because we immediately agree with them,
Accept them on the authority of the Church even though we don’t understand the teaching,
Reject them immediately because we Don’t agree with them.

Note that in the second option, we do not immediately reject a teaching Nor do we fully embrace it. Rather we accept it based on our trust in God and the authority of His Church.
What this acceptance allows is an opportunity to further explore the teaching and the reasons behind it.

I have found that in every case where I have had questions research into the teaching has made it clear why the Church teaches it.

I would venture to say that there is not one in a thousand catholics who fully UNDERSTANDS the teachings of the Church. There is a big difference between not accepting and not understanding. Each Catholic needs to ACCEPT the teachings of the Church.

Peace
James
 
As lmryl mentioned, there is a “hierarchy of truths”. I’d like to enlarge on his point.

The most central teachings are the ones revealed by God. If the Church presents a teaching as being a matter of divine revelation, we are required to believe it. We believe it using a particular supernatural gift given to us at baptism. The supernatural gift of “divine faith” enables us to believe the things God has revealed, even though human reason cannot prove them: for example, that God is a trinity of persons, that Jesus Christ is God incarnate, etc. All the teachings in the Creed are divinely revealed, and many others too. These teachings are called doctrines “de fide” (of the Faith). When a convert is received into the Church, he is asked whether he holds all the doctrine that, according to the Catholic Church, is revealed by God. The act of heresy consists of rejecting any of these doctrines, or obstinately doubting them.

There are other teachings which are not directly divinely revealed, but which are necessary for the correct understanding of divinely revealed truths. The Church teaches these also, and in many cases, makes it clear that these are binding and “to be held” by the faithful. Sometimes these doctrines are taught in a solemn form by a Church council or a document from the Pope, but usually they are simply taught routinely and consistently by the bishops. Vatican II’s “Dogmatic Constitution on the Church” says this (para. 25):

Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.

For example, most of Catholic moral doctrine is taught in this way. Relatively little of Catholic moral doctrine is spelled out by Church councils or in papal documents.

Since these doctrines are taught infallibly, the faithful must accept them.

In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.

Now, not everything in the Catechism is intended to be teaching in these categories. Some of the material just consists of historical material or explanations of doctrine, and the explanations might not be the best possible explanations of every single point.

So if someone has difficulties about accepting something in the Catechism, that could be an obstacle to entering the Church, or it might not, depending on what the issue is. If the Church has already settled the issue with binding teaching, then a person who can’t accept it is unable to accept the Church’s authority, and is not ready yet to enter the Church.

If the person is open to reconsideration, it’s worthwhile to study the issue further, and look at the Church’s reasons, and also look at the person’s reasons for not accepting the doctrine. Perhaps the person can come to recognize that the Church is correct; or the person may be able to acknowledge that his own opinion may be imperfect, and he can reasonably defer to the Church’s authority to settle the matter. In some cases, this sort of deference is enough to remove the obstacle; in some cases it’s not enough.
 
One problem is that it takes time and experience to understand everything in the CCC. Even if we give it all the benefit of the doubt, we can ponder spiritual matters for a lifetime and not come to full understanding, so some things we can or must withhold judgment on until we either gain understanding and come into agreement with the teaching -or not.
 
I agree, your girlfriend is very smart.

We have to learn humility, which means that we are willing to accept we’re not always right or be open to the possibility of being wrong. If you don’t “buy into” certain teachings of the church, you accept them on her authority but it’s important to seek out the answers to be at peace with the issue. Generally it’s due to ignorance or improper understanding that one disagrees.

There’s things that aren’t obligatory like private revelations, apparitions, the rosary, etc. Also on things like capital punishment you can have disagreements on how to best carry things out, but you CAN’T contradict or be against what’s definitively taught and really be Catholic. You can make a case for using the death penalty as a crime deterrent, you could make the case that it won’t work, either way you can be a good Catholic. You can’t be for abortion in good conscience on the other hand.

You’re wise girlfriend said it herself, that’s protestantism. Why? Because you’re putting your own “authority” over the Church’s.
 
In my mind, the question is what is meant by “don’t believe.” Is it a matter of faith? Is it a matter of understanding? Is it a matter of saying “The Catholic Church is wrong about this because of X.”

The first two are not a problem. The last one is
 
I would like to pose a sub-question to the OP. I have seen the term infallible used a lot. Would the Church claim that it has the whole Truth at all times, or is revelation on-going? If one claims that the Church always possesses the Truth and has always taught it as such, then one must explain the evolution of Catholic thought and doctrine. If, on the other hand, revelation is on-going, how is it possible for the Church to teach infallibly since, conceivably, it may not have access to the fullness of Truth as revealed by God.

Personally, I hold to the latter preposition, that revelation is on-going, and that the Church uncovers more and more of the fullness of Truth that is from God through the struggling of believers over what the Church teaches, and through dialogue within and outside of the Church. We must always respect and give the benefit of the doubt to the teachings of the Church, just as we would to anyone we were discussing something with until we can reasonably argue the opposite. Then, we should respectfully and will all due care to preserve so much of what is great in the Church, present our disagreement, and allow the Church to teach us again.

My two-cents…if you don’t agree…try to figure out why and take it up with someone in authority in the Church (not this forum) and let there be a teachable moment. Give the benefit of the doubt to the Church…but try to understand what it IS that rubs you the wrong way intellectually or otherwise. Don’t just disagree for the sake of disagreeing.
 
I would ask just WHAT things a person disputed in the CCC.

In many cases, it’s because people misunderstand them. These points can frequently be explained and clarified.

In other cases, it’s because they do NOT understand them. If these points are still not understood after clarification, it might be best to leave these points aside for a while. Maybe they will sink in later.
 
bpbasilphx said:
I would ask just WHAT things a person disputed in the CCC.

In many cases, it’s because people misunderstand them. These points can frequently be explained and clarified.

In other cases, it’s because they do NOT understand them. If these points are still not understood after clarification, it might be best to leave these points aside for a while. Maybe they will sink in later.
Click to expand...
I agree 100%
 
gwahicks said:
My girlfriend is Protestant, and she has been considering joining the Catholic Church. But in reading the Catechism, she has come across some things that she is either skeptical about or just can’t buy into. I would of course love for her to become Catholic, and my response has always been, “There are plenty of Catholics who don’t subscribe to every single teaching of the Catholic Church.” I tried to convey that Catholicism is much more “big tent” than Protestantism, where if you have any disagreement, you just go form your own church or denomination.

Her response to my statement was, “If you don’t believe everything in the Catechism, and you choose to believe some things but not others, isn’t that just being Protestant?” I said to her, “So you think a Catholic has to accept everything in the Catechism – all 3,000 paragraphs – or they’re not a Catholic?” Her answer was basically “yes” – otherwise, you might as well be Protestant and pick and choose from what you believe in based on your own beliefs. Thus, she is having trouble signing on to the Catholic Church, because her thinking is that you have to accept every single thing in the Catechism. Otherwise, why join, as opposed to having your own personal faith that borrows many, if not most, of those beliefs but excludes others?

I don’t really have any response to this, so I would love to hear others’ thoughts. There are lots of Catholics out there who disagree with the Church in a few or a number of areas, but they still are proud to align with the Church and call them Catholics. Are they just deluding themselves? If there is a single sentence in the Catechism that one doesn’t accept, does that prohibit being Catholic? If not, how much is one allowed to disagree with or not accept before losing all claim to being Catholic?
Click to expand...
In some cases one would not be disbelieving what the Church, or the Catechism, teaches, but what the Church teaches today as opposed to what She taught in times past–for instance, Limbo was once a dominant understanding of the fate of unbaptised babies, but no longer. The Church was formerly comfortable with the use of the death penalty but now largely opposes it. The Church in the Middle Ages was much more Augustinian; since the Reformation it has become much more Molinist, and especially so in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Please understand I am not asserting the Church has changed it’s doctrine on any central, core, or major tenets of faith or on defined dogmas. However, there have been some changes in direction, focus, or understanding.
 
Hicks:

Isn’t one’s faith based on what he believes rather than on what he does not?

🤷
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a summary of the doctrine of the Church. It does not contain proposals that one may accept or reject. It contains teachings that come to us from Christ through the Bishops.

Catholics are bound to assent to the teachings of the Church, even if they do not yet sufficiently understand them and therefore “disagree” with them. The Church cannot err in its teaching of faith and morals, therefore if we “disagree” with Church teaching it is we who are in error, not the Church. Our job is to continue to study until we come to understand the teaching.

What is is that you “disagree” with?

Regarding whether or not disagreeing with/not believing in something the Church teaches makes you “not Catholic” the answer to that is no. When you are baptized into the Catholic Church you receive an indelible mark on your soul. You are sealed with the Holy Spirit and are Catholic. For all time. There isn’t anything in the universe that can make you “not” Catholic, even death. Your job is to continue prayer and study until you do understand it and embrace it.

So, a Catholic who dissents from Church teaching is still a Catholic. They are a Catholic who may be separating themselves from the sacraments through sin or through excommunication. Merely disagreeing does not do that. You can not understand/disagree but yet never act on that and you have done nothing wrong. If you disagree and act on that-- for example doing something the Church says is wrong-- then yes, you are culpable for that disobedience and sin. You are not free to reject Church teaching. Authentic freedom comes when we obey God’s law.

You’ve got a smart gal there!
 
I’m not a literalist when it comes to the Catechism. I still feel I’m a Catholic.
 
Middleman said:
I’m not a literalist when it comes to the Catechism. I still feel I’m a Catholic.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what you mean by that, given the CCC is not written in linguistic styles that need interpreting. Could you give an example?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top