Is It an Issue of Immorality to Disagree with Papal Decree?

  • Thread starter Thread starter James_S_Saint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

James_S_Saint

Guest
If the Papacy formalizes and announces a decree and a member cannot in good conscious accept the declaration as truth nor allow the disparity from truth go unrevealed, is it an act of **immorality **to speak against the decree as such would bring challenge to faith in the Church?

If not, how is excommunication (required by some decrees) justified for those who do speak up about such disparities?
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”(Gaudium et spes 16) In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time “from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith.”(1 Tim 5; cf. 8:9; 2 Tim 3; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 24:16)

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.(Gaudium et spes 16)

One is only bound by a correctly formed conscience and a correctly formed conscience will not go against the Church.
 
Well, I was hoping to not have to get into particulars or examples, but I think that it can’t be avoided (after reading those references).

So as a fictitious example, let’s say that in the year 500AD, the issue of whether the number Pi repeats came up as relevant enough for some people to believe that it determined something deeply rooted in religion and moral behavior. So to resolve the issue, the Pope, after consulting his sources, announces in a decree that the number Pi does indeed repeat and anyone speaking otherwise is to be excommunicated for heresy.

Of course many years later, after computers have demonstrated that even after thousands of digits carefully calculated, Pi does NOT repeat. Even though this is not proof, it is certainly over whelming evidence that the Papal decree was in error. Today, such a decree would be considered irrelevant as it appears to not be related to morals or faith. But there are 2 remaining concerns;
  1. By arguing against the Church decree, a person is directly challenging “faith in the Church itself” and anyone who had been excommunicated or even oppressed by the threat of it for the last 1500 years would have been wronged by the Church and thus the challenge to the faith can be serious as it proposes the possibility of more oppression and violation as yet to come or be revealed.
  2. IF someone DOES relate the value of Pi to a moral issue and thus believes it to be a moral issue and yet disagrees with the Church then to that person, the Church has been proven to be fallible on moral issues as well as issues of faith.
So in both cases faith is challenged. But the question is whether a challenge to faith in the Church is an issue of *morality *in that it would lead to a lack of faith in other moral issues and thus be a cause of sin - immorality.

??
 
There is a further distinction to be made here. On comments which are not simply the Pope’s prudential opinion (so statements on faith and morals fall into this camp), one need not agree in the sense of “I understand that and see it to be true”, because frankly one might not understand the reasoning behind it. But in such case, one should accept it in good conscience, to make an assent of the will.

I like to use the dogma of the Trinity as an example. I believe the Catechism actually states that this doctrine is beyond human understanding or an impenetrable mystery or words to that effect (CCC not in front of me but we all can look it up). So here is a concept which is intrinsically impossible to understand, at least fully. And yet all Catholics are called to believe it. Fully. And the amazing thing is, nearly all Catholics do. But note that practically none of them could give more than a passing explanation of the doctrine itself.

It amazes me when I see packets of cafeteria Catholicism regarding some piece of doctrine which is far less inscrutable than that of the Trinity (which pretty much means all cafeteria Catholicism). That very same person wouldn’t bat an eyelash over the Trinity.
 
You are setting up a straw man with your fictious construct.

Stick to the facts, there is no need for hypotheticals.

Give us a situation that is real world.

The Church is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, as you have been told repeatedlty. When it speaks on science it is not infallible.

When the Church speaks on matters outside of Faith and Morals we are not bound. When it speaks on Faith and Morals, we are bound but in matters that are not dogmatic there is room for disagreement.
 
ByzCath said:
You are setting up a straw man with your fictious construct.

Stick to the facts, there is no need for hypotheticals.

Give us a situation that is real world.

The Church is only infallible in matters of Faith and Morals, as you have been told repeatedlty. When it speaks on science it is not infallible.

When the Church speaks on matters outside of Faith and Morals we are not bound. When it speaks on Faith and Morals, we are bound but in matters that are not dogmatic there is room for disagreement.
Click to expand...
As you have demonstrated on other threads, by not being able to understand the actual questions, you yield inappropriate responses. But not believing that you can be so in error, you repeat ad nauseum in a pious effort to thwart a non-existent enemy, by thus creating one. I suspect Jesus would consider such to be an immoral act in itself.
 
James_S_Saint said:
[snip]
  1. By arguing against the Church decree, a person is directly challenging “faith in the Church itself” and anyone who had been excommunicated or even oppressed by the threat of it for the last 1500 years would have been wronged by the Church and thus the challenge to the faith can be serious as it proposes the possibility of more oppression and violation as yet to come or be revealed.
  2. IF someone DOES relate the value of Pi to a moral issue and thus believes it to be a moral issue and yet disagrees with the Church then to that person, the Church has been proven to be fallible on moral issues as well as issues of faith.
So in both cases faith is challenged. But the question is whether a challenge to faith in the Church is an issue of *morality *in that it would lead to a lack of faith in other moral issues and thus be a cause of sin - immorality.

??
Click to expand...
There is a third option. One could argue against decrees that were not of moral nature. There is nothing wrong with this if done honestly and charitably. Read the preface to Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict for an illustration.

Understand that the Holy Spirit protects the Church from doctrinal error. At some point your hypothetical will become so counterfactual to no longer be describing the Church at all. Once that happens all bets are off, and anything is possible. A current example of this is the Anglicans (worldwide). They do not have a magisterium protected from doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit, so when a doctrinal dispute arises there is no recourse to resolve the dispute, and we’re left with chaos.

And actually yes, one can prove that pi does not repeat.🙂
 
James_S_Saint said:
As you have demonstrated on other threads, by not being able to understand the actual questions, you yield inappropriate responses. But not believing that you can be so in error, you repeat ad nauseum in a pious effort to thwart a non-existent enemy, by thus creating one. I suspect Jesus would consider such to be an immoral act in itself.
Click to expand...
I pointed out how your fictious decree would not apply as it is a matter of science which the Church is not infallible on. I asked you for a real world example, which with your diatribe I can see you can not supply.

I make no enemy. You make the enemy when you comment that we only believe as we are told to believe thereby making the assumption that we are incapable of discerning the Truth. It is you who has the closed mind and prove it continually.

I replied to your original post with what the Church Teaches in the Catechism, you have chosen not to respond to that and toss out a fictious situation. Please comment on what the Catechism says and how it does not answer your OP (if that is what you think) or if it does, as I think it does, then really there is no need to go any further.
 
ByzCath said:
…then really there is no need to go any further.
Click to expand...
I think I have said that to you before. After attempting a polite discussion, you insist that I am your enemy with evil hidden agenda and intent and demand that I apologize to you (which I did anyway). But after your refusal to actually address the real question, apparently incapable of understanding the real issue, I stated that you and I have no more to say to each other. You refuse to stop and seemingly cannot comprehend my topics. So I stopped responding to you despite your continued accusations. But here you are again.
 
James_S_Saint said:
As a side note, I am not aware that such a proof has been made. Might you have a source?
Click to expand...
Wikipedia has this article. You can look at the references if you want the actual papers. Being ‘irrational’ in this sense means one cannot represent it as a fraction with integer numerator and denominator. But it is trivial to show that all numbers whose decimal expansion eventually repeats can be written as such a fraction. Thus pi does not repeat.
 
I’m in a similar boat. When I was a kid, an adult in our parish told me that whatever Luther’s concerns were, he should have handled them through the “appropriate means” or something like that through the Church. But what does that mean? How should he have addressed the selling of indulgences? I don’t know what the appropriate means is.

I personally have grave concern over the Church granting so many annullments. I myself do not know anyone who has ever gone through the process that has been denied. It strikes me as the Church’s attempt to maintain the appearance of control when in fact people are going to go right on divorcing, remarrying, and taking the sacrament regardless. Most recently I knew a couple who had been married over 40 yrs., had grown children and grandchildren, can’t imagine the reason that was given but–really? Divorce is a very sad condition of our present society and I feel very convicted that the Church of all institutions should not be lending its stamp of approval. It worries me a great deal. 😦 Plus I feel that essentially saying no sacrament existed after the fact puts the whole faith on shaky ground.
 
James_S_Saint said:
So as a fictitious example, let’s say that in the year 500AD, the issue of whether the number Pi repeats came up as relevant enough for some people to believe that it determined something deeply rooted in religion and moral behavior. So to resolve the issue, the Pope, after consulting his sources, announces in a decree that the number Pi does indeed repeat and anyone speaking otherwise is to be excommunicated for heresy.
Click to expand...
I think the Church’s position on this was best expressed during the Galileo affair. Does this address your question?

*“I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the **universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.” (Robert Bellarmine)

Ender
**
*
 
fulltimemom asks how Luther should have handled the selling of indulgences – just as the Council of Trent did: condemn the abuse and as part of the Magisterium create rules to avoid the abuses.

Trying to found one’s own church is obviously not the answer! Look at the chaos today!

Laxity in granting annulments has been condemned by John Paul II, and is part of that laxity of some bishops which has existed from apostolic times. Canon Law is clear, and we are still reaping the whirlwind of dissent that erupted at and after Vatican II and Humanae Vitae; the renewal of formation in seminaries is producing good fruit to reduce abuses of all kinds. Do you remember that it was a chosen one of Jesus – Judas – who betrayed Him?

Faithful Catholics assent to all dogma and doctrine and strive to lead lives in accord with this, including offering truth to all.
 
James_S_Saint said:
If the Papacy formalizes and announces a decree and a member cannot in good conscious accept the declaration as truth nor allow the disparity from truth go unrevealed, is it an act of **immorality **to speak against the decree as such would bring challenge to faith in the Church?

If not, how is excommunication (required by some decrees) justified for those who do speak up about such disparities?
Click to expand...
It’s not a matter of morals, it’s a matter of disobedience.

Such disputes should be handled privately between the appropriate magesterial authorities and the person dissenting, and should be done in a spirit of understanding. To take such matters into a public forum promotes scandal within the Church, and that is not acceptable. Only in very, very, very extreme and persistant cases would excommunication be a remedy.

More likely would be a removal of Catholic teaching priviledges for a Catholic theologian, for example.
 
fulltimemom said:
[Luther snip]

I personally have grave concern over the Church granting so many annullments. I myself do not know anyone who has ever gone through the process that has been denied. It strikes me as the Church’s attempt to maintain the appearance of control when in fact people are going to go right on divorcing, remarrying, and taking the sacrament regardless. Most recently I knew a couple who had been married over 40 yrs., had grown children and grandchildren, can’t imagine the reason that was given but–really? Divorce is a very sad condition of our present society and I feel very convicted that the Church of all institutions should not be lending its stamp of approval. It worries me a great deal. 😦 Plus I feel that essentially saying no sacrament existed after the fact puts the whole faith on shaky ground.
Click to expand...
Welcome to CAF!

I am involved with my parish’s Pre-Cana ministry, and I share some of the concern you have. But I also notice something else through working with engaged couples: many, many of them have absolutely no idea about what the Sacrament is really about. Sadly, it would not surprise me that many couples who do not get good sacramental formation (and I know some marriage prep programs are quite lacking) end up with a state of mind toward their union which is deficient in some way. To be fair, know I am not a canon lawyer, but the frequency of annulments does not surprise me knowing what I see.

Of course, perhaps this state of affairs is no less worrisome:(. But the Church is (usually) quite sensitive about giving scandal so I doubt there is abuse, at least widespread abuse, of the annulment process.
 
I don’t believe it is immoral to disagree with a Papal ex cathedra decree. Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism is not immoral because it is not governed by Rome. However, one who cannot agree with the infallibility of such a decree should not be a Catholic. This is one of the requirements. I do NOT agree with all church dogma or doctrine. The church has made mistakes in the past which it has never failed to rectify. However, an ex cathedra decree comes directly from the Holy Spirit. A Catholic must believe this. An example is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. It is not immoral for you to disagree with this; however, since it was pronounced ex cathedra, a Catholic must agree with this.
 
jrgiancola said:
I do NOT agree with all church dogma or doctrine.
Click to expand...
This position strikes me as irrational. The Church either is or is not what she proclaims herself to be. If she is mistaken about who she is then she is a fraud and it is senseless to remain a member. On the other hand, if she is who she claims to be then she cannot possibly be right only some of the time. That is, it is not logical to assume that she can be both right and wrong. She claims to be protected from serious error by the Holy Spirit. If that claim is spurious then there is no basis on which to believe any of what she says but if the claim is true then there is no basis to reject what she teaches.
The church has made mistakes in the past which it has never failed to rectify.
Click to expand...
Can you name them?

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top