Is a Catholic morally allowed to objectively examine his faith?

[Luke_K]

It doesn’t seem like it to me. A “good” Catholic must always approach a challenge to his faith with the presumption that Catholicism is right. And if he doesn’t find an answer to it, he is just supposed to trust in Catholicism on faith. If he concludes that some aspect of his faith is irrational or highly unlikely, he is supposed to recognize his hubris and humble himself before the teaching authority of the Church.

But objectivity requires approaching the arguments without bias or a predetermined conclusion. The Catholic must believe beforehand that he already has the truth, and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

 

[Rahn]

I don’t believe God wants us to believe anything on blind faith. In Isaiah, He says “Come, let us reason together”. He provides us the evidence, we need to search for it.

If Catholocism does not stand up to objective thought/questioning, then it does not stand.

Seeking the Truth is never a sin.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

It doesn’t seem like it to me. A “good” Catholic must always approach a challenge to his faith with the presumption that Catholicism is right. And if he doesn’t find an answer to it, he is just supposed to trust in Catholicism on faith. If he concludes that some aspect of his faith is irrational or highly unlikely, he is supposed to recognize his hubris and humble himself before the teaching authority of the Church.

But objectivity requires approaching the arguments without bias or a predetermined conclusion. The Catholic must believe beforehand that he already has the truth, and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

You obviously have never talked with or discussed anything with a Jesuit! They will take your premise and beat your brains out with it.

 

[Heuchler]

It is not a sin, but if you were to fall away then that would become morally wrong if Catholicism is right. Now it is good though to question your faith and find a reason to believe. While blind faith is good, reasoned faith is also a good thing to have.

Just remember the famous phrase “Don’t be too open minded or your brain will fall out”

 

[mark_a]

The Catholic must believe beforehand that he already has the truth, and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

Not exactly.

A Catholic must not deny dogma. That does not mean that we don’t have questions.

 

[ChadS]

I believe that questioning your faith is good and can lead to a stronger and deeper and therefore more meaningful faith. There is a difference between questioning your faith while maintaining a healthy submission to the teaching authority of the Church and questioning your faith and rejecting the Church because in your opinion it doesn’t make sense.

I suspect that many works we now consider great spiritual writings wouldn’t have been written if somebody didn’t have questions that needed answering. So questioning your faith shouldn’t be seen as an evil or somehow sinning, but all the while keep in mind where the truth really lies and that is in the Church established on earth by Jesus Christ, not in you. If you question your faith you have an obligation to sit down and engage the Church’s teaching study the logic and philosophy that goes into the position. Dissect it and analyze it thoroughly. Don’t mischaracterize it or parrot the position to reach a conclusion that you find acceptable.

ChadS

 

[Jerome_Schauf]

I’m acatechist and challenge the kids to question their faith! God is a very big God and can handle it! What is wrong is to challenge your faith with your mind already made up. If you challenge in an open an honest desire to learn, God is not only not offended but excited to show you. Most times when I run into this people already have their mind made up and don’t want any information to contradict their bias.

 

[JRKH]

It doesn’t seem like it to me. A “good” Catholic must always approach a challenge to his faith with the presumption that Catholicism is right. And if he doesn’t find an answer to it, he is just supposed to trust in Catholicism on faith. If he concludes that some aspect of his faith is irrational or highly unlikely, he is supposed to recognize his hubris and humble himself before the teaching authority of the Church.

But objectivity requires approaching the arguments without bias or a predetermined conclusion. The Catholic must believe beforehand that he already has the truth, and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

The flaw in this argument is this.

The Catholic is Catholic because he/she is convinced, first and foremost, that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Christ, protected and guided by the Holy Spirit.
So this becomes the first and most important conclusion that is objectively arrived at.

All of the other matters then flow from this basic and indisputable (for the Catholic) fact.
Since I have already made the objective conclusion that the Church IS what she says she is, the it is not only logical, but necessary that I accept what she teaches.
There is no need for me to objectively “test” each and every teaching.
Rather, it is merely for me to understand, as much as I am able, the teachings of the Church that I have “objectively” found to be true.

See what I mean??

Peace
James

 

[Bezant]

It doesn’t seem like it to me. A “good” Catholic must always approach a challenge to his faith with the presumption that Catholicism is right. And if he doesn’t find an answer to it, he is just supposed to trust in Catholicism on faith. If he concludes that some aspect of his faith is irrational or highly unlikely, he is supposed to recognize his hubris and humble himself before the teaching authority of the Church.

But objectivity requires approaching the arguments without bias or a predetermined conclusion. The Catholic must believe beforehand that he already has the truth, and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

I disagree. I think if a Catholic wants to be ‘objective’, he should confront the irrationalities and make an honest decision about them: in spite of the irrationalities, is the Church infallible or not? If the answer is no, so long as it’s out of sincerity and respect, it’s not an arrogant view at all.

On the other hand, I don’t believe that ALL Catholics need to approach their faith this way. Some people are like the little children that the Gospel talks about; they’re not stupid, but for them, it’s sufficient for them to believe and trust the Church teaches the truth.

 

[yablabo]

It doesn’t seem like it to me. A “good” Catholic must always approach a challenge to his faith with the presumption that Catholicism is right. And if he doesn’t find an answer to it, he is just supposed to trust in Catholicism on faith. If he concludes that some aspect of his faith is irrational or highly unlikely, he is supposed to recognize his hubris and humble himself before the teaching authority of the Church.

But objectivity requires approaching the arguments without bias or a predetermined conclusion. The Catholic must believe beforehand that he already has the truth, and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

There’s nothing more objective than what God says. So, whatever we’re to believe by divine and Catholic faith can be held as an absolute certitude whether each individual can perceive its intrinsic truth or not.

The Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith in the First Vatican Council lays this concept out beautifully in Chapter 3 (On Faith) and Chapter 4 (On Faith and Reason). Here are some excerpts:

Ch. 3 On Faith

1. Since human beings are totally dependent on God as their Creator and Lord, and created reason is completely subject to uncreated truth, we are obliged to yield to God the Revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.

1. This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, Who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.

1. Faith, declares the Apostle, is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

1. Nevertheless, in order that the submission of our faith should be in accordance with reason, it was God’s will that there should be linked to the internal assistance of the Holy Spirit external indications of His revelation, that is to say divine acts, and first and foremost miracles and prophecies, which clearly demonstrating as they do the omnipotence and infinite knowledge of God, are the most certain signs of revelation and are suited to the understanding of all.

1. Hence Moses and the prophets, and especially Christ our Lord Himself, worked many absolutely clear miracles and delivered prophecies; while of the Apostles we read: And they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by the signs that attended it. Again it is written: We have the prophetic word made more sure; you will do well to pay attention to this as to a lamp shining in a dark place.

1. Now, although the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind, yet no one can accept the gospel preaching in the way that is necessary for achieving salvation without the inspiration and illumination of the Holy Spirit, who gives to all facility in accepting and believing the truth.

1. And so faith in itself, even though it may not work through charity, is a gift of God, and its operation is a work belonging to the order of salvation, in that a person yields true obedience to God Himself when he accepts and collaborates with His grace which he could have rejected.

1. Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal Magisterium.

– continued below –

 

[yablabo]

It doesn’t seem like it to me…and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

Ch. 4 On Faith and Reason

1. The perpetual agreement of the Catholic Church has maintained and maintains this too: that there is a twofold order of knowledge, distinct not only as regards its source, but also as regards its object.

1. With regard to the source, we know at the one level by natural reason, at the other level by divine faith.

1. With regard to the object, besides those things to which natural reason can attain, there are proposed for our belief mysteries hidden in God which, unless they are divinely revealed, are incapable of being known. Wherefore, when the Apostle, who witnesses that God was known to the gentiles from created things, comes to treat of the grace and truth which came by Jesus Christ, he declares: We impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glorification. None of the rulers of this age understood this. God has revealed it to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. And the Only-begotten himself, in His confession to the Father, acknowledges that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to the little ones.

1. Now reason, does indeed when it seeks persistently, piously and soberly, achieve by God’s gift some understanding, and that most profitable, of the mysteries, whether by analogy from what it knows naturally, or from the connection of these mysteries with one another and with the final end of humanity; but reason is never rendered capable of penetrating these mysteries in the way in which it penetrates those truths which form its proper object. For the divine mysteries, by their very nature, so far surpass the created understanding that, even when a revelation has been given and accepted by faith, they remain covered by the veil of that same faith and wrapped, as it were, in a certain obscurity, as long as in this mortal life we are away from the Lord, for we walk by faith, and not by sight.

5.** Even though faith is above reason, there can never be any real disagreement between faith and reason, since it is the same God who reveals the mysteries and infuses faith, and who has endowed the human mind with the light of reason**.

1. God cannot deny Himself, nor can truth ever be in opposition to truth. The appearance of this kind of specious contradiction is chiefly due to the fact that either the dogmas of faith are not understood and explained in accordance with the mind of the Church, or unsound views are mistaken for the conclusions of reason.

1. Therefore We define that every assertion contrary to the truth of enlightened faith is totally false.

1. Furthermore the Church which, together with its Apostolic Office of teaching, has received the charge of preserving the deposit of faith, has by divine appointment the right and duty of condemning what wrongly passes for knowledge, lest anyone be led astray by philosophy and empty deceit.

1. Hence all faithful Christians are forbidden to defend as the legitimate conclusions of science those opinions which are known to be contrary to the doctrine of faith, particularly if they have been condemned by the Church; and furthermore they are absolutely bound to hold them to be errors which wear the deceptive appearance of truth.

1. Not only can faith and reason never be at odds with one another but they mutually support each other, for on the one hand right reason established the foundations of the faith and, illuminated by its light, develops the science of divine things; on the other hand, faith delivers reason from errors and protects it and furnishes it with knowledge of many kinds.

– continued below –

 

[yablabo]

It doesn’t seem like it to me…and that he sins if he ends up doubting.

Canons

1. On Faith

1. If anyone says that the assent to Christian faith is not free, but is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity: let him be anathema.

1. If anyone says that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the Church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith: let him be anathema.

and

Canons

1. On Faith and Reason

1. If anyone says that in divine revelation there are contained no true mysteries properly so-called, but that all the dogmas of the faith can be understood and demonstrated by properly trained reason from natural principles: let him be anathema.

1. If anyone says that human studies are to be treated with such a degree of liberty that their assertions may be maintained as true even when they are opposed to divine revelation, and that they may not be forbidden by the Church: let him be anathema.

1. If anyone says that it is possible that at some time, given the advancement of knowledge, a sense may be assigned to the dogmas propounded by the Church which is different from that which the Church has understood and understands: let him be anathema.

Bon appétit.

– Nicole

 

[abucs]

You make a good point Luke.

I would say it is beneficial to always be questioning the world around us. Some things though just cannot be known for sure. In these cases as a Catholic I would give more weight to Catholic doctrine though recognise the indeterminancy of the issue.

There was a view last century that if we all gave up those things we could not prove we could all come together in a larger stronger community but that view has been shown to be very wrong.

A warning i would agree with is that if we all individually are strident in opposing the different indeterminant issues we all have, then community breaks down, we all fragment and civilisation declines. IMHO vigilance, faithfulness to tradition and individual questioning are actions that need to be both recognised and balanced.

 

[timeandeternity]

I also struggle with something similar to the OP’s issue. It’s very easy for me to have doubts about my faith, so I’m always afraid to read non-Catholic arguments. If I have any inkling of a doubt, I push away any thought of the Protestant/Atheist/other non-Catholic argument instead of honestly examining it, and go straight to Catholic resources. I am unable and unwilling to look at anything that might contradict Catholic teaching. My best friend, who was raised Baptist, is, however, being very open about looking at Catholicism. I know that he quickly picked up on my unwillingness to closely examine Protestant arguments, because he expressed to me back in the spring that he felt like he was being as open as possible, but I wasn’t as open. He’s absolutely right, and I don’t know what to do about that. I feel dishonest and unfair for not being as open as he is, but at the same time, I am afraid of jeopardizing my faith. I am afraid that if I keep refusing to sincerely examine other arguments (without the intention of harming my faith, of course), and keep stifling any doubts immediately, I’ll eventually cave, devour a bunch of non-Catholic materials, and leave the Church.
I really don’t know what to do about this…

 

[Rascalking]

If you don’t struggle with your faith on occasion, your either lying to yourself or your faith isn’t very strong.

I examine my faith all the time, if someone says it’s mortally sinful, I’d ignore them.

 

[JRKH]

I also struggle with something similar to the OP’s issue. It’s very easy for me to have doubts about my faith, so I’m always afraid to read non-Catholic arguments. If I have any inkling of a doubt, I push away any thought of the Protestant/Atheist/other non-Catholic argument instead of honestly examining it, and go straight to Catholic resources. I am unable and unwilling to look at anything that might contradict Catholic teaching. My best friend, who was raised Baptist, is, however, being very open about looking at Catholicism. I know that he quickly picked up on my unwillingness to closely examine Protestant arguments, because he expressed to me back in the spring that he felt like he was being as open as possible, but I wasn’t as open. He’s absolutely right, and I don’t know what to do about that. I feel dishonest and unfair for not being as open as he is, but at the same time, I am afraid of jeopardizing my faith. I am afraid that if I keep refusing to sincerely examine other arguments (without the intention of harming my faith, of course), and keep stifling any doubts immediately, I’ll eventually cave, devour a bunch of non-Catholic materials, and leave the Church.
I really don’t know what to do about this…

I think that to an extent we all feel some of this, unless of course you happen to be a trained apologist or theologian type.

A certain amount of this has to do with how much time we have to devote to a particular thing/belief etc. It also depends on whether we are actually “Looking” and what we are looking for. To simply read non-catholic arguments, beliefs etc. may be OK, but only if one can truly and clearly compare them with Catholic teaching through a “properly formed conscience”.

What I would do about your friend’s observation is to freely confess that you have concerns about such things. That there are areas of your faith that you have not explored and are concerned about your ability to truly and rightly compare one thing to the other. and ask him to understand and respect that this is where you are right now. Also thank him for his interest in the faith because it helps you to grow and better understand these matters.

One thing that I would suggest to help you is to keep a firm grip on the fundamentals of our faith. The Sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation. Baptists have nothing like these and these can be tremendously helpful in protecting you from the draw of other, attractive but not as full, faith communities.

Peace
James

 

[timeandeternity]

JRKH, thank you for your advice on this and the other thread I started. I appreciate your wisdom and insight!

 

[Abu]

Rahn
If Catholocism does not stand up to objective thought/questioning, then it does not stand.
mark a
A Catholic must not deny dogma.
Bezant
I think if a Catholic wants to be ‘objective’, he should confront the irrationalities and make an honest decision about them: in spite of the irrationalities, is the Church infallible or not? If the answer is no, so long as it’s out of sincerity and respect, it’s not an arrogant view at all.
timeandeternity
I am afraid that if I keep refusing to sincerely examine other arguments (without the intention of harming my faith, of course), and keep stifling any doubts immediately, I’ll eventually cave, devour a bunch of non-Catholic materials, and leave the Church.
I really don’t know what to do about this…

We need to recall that the Catholic Church is founded by the Son of God and given His authority to teach faith and morals (in dogma and doctrine) infallibly:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

Sole authority to Peter:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

From Fr Thomas Dubay, Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.”
(p 82-84).

The certitude is based on the fact that Christ gave us His Magisterium, and His Church gave us Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture. Protestants have only a Bible, and that incomplete, and only because the Catholic Church infallibly declared that 73 books make up the written Word of God.

With the easy availability of Catholic references on the web it is easy to gain relevant facts, learn and support the truth.

 

[Jonatello]

It is not a sin, but if you were to fall away then that would become morally wrong if Catholicism is right. Now it is good though to question your faith and find a reason to believe. While blind faith is good, reasoned faith is also a good thing to have.

Just remember the famous phrase “Don’t be too open minded or your brain will fall out”

how is it morally wrong to be factually incorrect?

if you are genuinely under the impression Catholicism is incorrect, and it turns out it IS correct and YOU are incorrect, aren’t you simply factually wrong and morally right for your honesty?

 

[sallybutler]

Many of the saints suffered from doubts. It is what you do as a result of these doubts that can lead you to sin or to a state of grace.

So yes, the Catholic is okay with you examining your faith. I think she actually feels that this examination will lead you to greater faith, not less.