Should dissenting Catholics be encouraged to leave the Church?

[Sy_Noe]

SyNoe…if you look at the missalette…those who are in communion with the Catholic Church can receive.

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ…so if you truly believe this and are in communion in the Church and not separated you may receive.

If someone does not believe in the reality of the Eucharist, one does not receive. If someone willfully and fully acknowledges our belief but denies the Real Presence but receives anyway, that person commits a sacrilege and grave sin.

However, a person who does not have faith can still go up with arms crossed over one’s heart and receive a blessing from the priest, and not from a lay person per se.

Hi Kathleen, thank you, yes I am familiar with a blessing such as you refer to. I’ve found differing views about it among Catholics however as you can find here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=646898

and from that thread this:

“In a similar way, for others who are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in accord with the norm of law, the Church’s discipline has already made clear that they should not approach Holy Communion nor receive a blessing. This would include non-Catholics and those envisaged in can. 915 (i.e., those under the penalty of excommunication or interdict, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin).”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=543513

 

[Sy_Noe]

I sent you a private message answering you to the best of my ability.

As you know, received!

 

[ericc]

When we were baptized, we were grafted or adopted into God’s family. With time some family members felt they no longer subscribed to the family’s views and practices. Some even hated the family. However, there are times when such family members reconciled and things became good again. Notwithstanding the dissent in the family, membership in the family remains. One may hate their parents but the family bond is still there. One is not an anonymous. One can be a prodigal family member and yet remain in the tribe but not in good standing. Only God can cut you off from his vine. Even those excommunicated can still return.

One may not always understand the teachings of the Church. When Christ taught the Bread of Life, even his apostles were pretty clueless but they didn’t leave. They must be pretty horrified to asked to eat their Master’s flesh and drink his blood, all very non-Jewish.

But what if you can’t maintain Church teachings? The question then one must ask themselves is whether they believe the Church teaching to be true? If it is true, going outside the Church doesn’t make it less true. Whether one chose to go outside and commit a sin or remain inside and commit the sin, the effect is the same. One is not better off outside. But to remain inside, one is availed the sacraments to strengthen oneself. To remain inside, why retains the opportunity to understand these teachings more clearly. To go outside, such opportunities vanish. Often times, others will teach it is alright to do all those prohibited things. Encouraged to listen to one’s own feelings, be brave, seek happiness, seek fulfillment, seek interpretation that harmonizes with one’s preferences. Too often these are our own criteria, not God’s. Peter didn’t quit when he denied Jesus 3 times. He repented and he was rejuvenated.

But what if you don’t believe Church teachings on say a certain doctrine? Still no reason for any Church member to encouraged this person to leave. In my opinion, those reachable still have a chance to be educated/turned compared to those you don’t even get to see them at all. And the further they are away from the Church, the harder to hold on to them. The more they are tempted.

The only time when such a person need to be distanced away from the Church is when they start to preach heresy in order to protect existing members. A sick person need to be quarantined lest they spread the sickness to others. Yet these can still be cured. Atheist can become theist. Anything is possible with God.

We may have private doubts, dark nights of the soul, but that happens to some/many? Not a deathblow. Sacraments and prayers, Eucharistic adoration, healing mass can help. If you go outside , you don’t have all these.

Short answer is no. Don’t quit. It is better to have a bit of the truth rather than even less.

 

[Sy_Noe]

When we were baptized, we were grafted or adopted into God’s family. With time some family members felt they no longer subscribed to the family’s views and practices. Some even hated the family. However, there are times when such family members reconciled and things became good again. Notwithstanding the dissent in the family, membership in the family remains. One may hate their parents but the family bond is still there. One is not an anonymous. One can be a prodigal family member and yet remain in the tribe but not in good standing. Only God can cut you off from his vine. Even those excommunicated can still return.

One may not always understand the teachings of the Church. When Christ taught the Bread of Life, even his apostles were pretty clueless but they didn’t leave. They must be pretty horrified to asked to eat their Master’s flesh and drink his blood, all very non-Jewish.

But what if you can’t maintain Church teachings? The question then one must ask themselves is whether they believe the Church teaching to be true? If it is true, going outside the Church doesn’t make it less true. Whether one chose to go outside and commit a sin or remain inside and commit the sin, the effect is the same. One is not better off outside. But to remain inside, one is availed the sacraments to strengthen oneself. To remain inside, why retains the opportunity to understand these teachings more clearly. To go outside, such opportunities vanish. Often times, others will teach it is alright to do all those prohibited things. Encouraged to listen to one’s own feelings, be brave, seek happiness, seek fulfillment, seek interpretation that harmonizes with one’s preferences. Too often these are our own criteria, not God’s. Peter didn’t quit when he denied Jesus 3 times. He repented and he was rejuvenated.

But what if you don’t believe Church teachings on say a certain doctrine? Still no reason for any Church member to encouraged this person to leave. In my opinion, those reachable still have a chance to be educated/turned compared to those you don’t even get to see them at all. And the further they are away from the Church, the harder to hold on to them. The more they are tempted.

The only time when such a person need to be distanced away from the Church is when they start to preach heresy in order to protect existing members. A sick person need to be quarantined lest they spread the sickness to others. Yet these can still be cured. Atheist can become theist. Anything is possible with God.

We may have private doubts, dark nights of the soul, but that happens to some/many? Not a deathblow. Sacraments and prayers, Eucharistic adoration, healing mass can help. If you go outside , you don’t have all these.

Short answer is no. Don’t quit. It is better to have a bit of the truth rather than even less.

Ericc, although I’m not sure there’s the same benefit when a person is isolated from a faith community as when someone with a disease is quarantined, since I think that can lead to even further distance. I still think it’s only fair of me to say that was one of nicest posts I’ve read in awhile by a Catholic about this.

 

[KathleenGee]

The norms that are in the missalette are not personal interpretations…but the work of the Church through its bishops.

The Eucharist is Divine and one commits a grave sin knowingly receiving without faith…especially when told not to do so.

 

[Contarini]

This post is more to address your 123 scenarios.

Not to be overly cynical, but there are some “Catholics,” probably 321 and 231 in your hypothesis, that aren’t interested being convinced on any Church position. They don’t have some intellectually sound objection. They just have some emotional, tantrum, ad populum view and they aren’t going to be “reconciled” any time soon with apologetics. It will require, perhaps, profound grace or a moving emotional experience in life that reorients them – for this to happen may require a miracle or something close to it. In the meanwhile, for those people to “remain” in the Church does seem scandalous. I think there is a very fair argument to be made that the Church is better off if such objectors are visibly outside the Church. Because they otherwise give the false witness that it’s “okay” to believe such things and remain in good standing.

Sorry for taking so long to respond (and to comment on this thread in general). I appreciate the thoughtful, substantive commentary (from you and many others).

A lot of people have views that they don’t think through carefully. It’s probably an “observer bias” error to suppose that this is more characteristic of those with whom one disagrees than of those with whom one agrees. But certainly there are what could be called “lazy” patterns of thought into which it’s easy to fall in any culture, and I know a lot of Catholics who do this–who just think what people in the culture in general think and criticize the Church for being “behind the times” or whatever.

The purpose of my paradigm is to help everyone think through just what our priorities are. People such as you describe need to be nudged, gently, when appropriate, into thinking about just why they remain in the Church. But that’s not the same as telling them that they should leave.

One important factor that my paradigm doesn’t really account for is the strong sense many cradle Catholics have that religion is just something you are stuck with, born into. I’ve had Catholic friends look at me very oddly when I speak of becoming Catholic, because in their minds you really can’t change your religion (as they’d put it). While this obviously isn’t an orthodox Catholic view, it is, in a certain way, very Catholic–at least, it contrasts pretty sharply with the standard Protestant idea that people should go around matching up their beliefs with potential churches/religions as if one were on an online dating site.

And that’s what really annoys me about a lot of these posts saying that dissenters should leave the Church. Over and over again I’ve seen people say things like, “I wouldn’t join a club if I didn’t agree with its rules,” etc.

But the Church isn’t a club. It’s the Body of Christ.

For your other questionable scenarios, I think #3 might be better qualified if the person thinks X is false BUT X is not a dogmatic matter of faith or morals.

And that is exactly what a 132 or a 312 thinks. They are the cases I’m really interested in debating–the “faithful dissenters” whose possibility many here deny.

Because if one recognizes the Church’s protection from error on dogmatic teaching of faith or morals, then the only way to remain in good standing while disagreeing with such a teaching would be to generate a sound theological argument for why the Church’s position is actually NOT a matter of faith or morals.

Or that the position in question has not been definitively taught by the Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What!?
If you believe that, are you not subject to automatic excommunication from the Catholic Church? What you are claiming was condemned as a serious error by Exsurge Domine (#33) and after the condemnation of this error we read:
"We have found that these errors or theses are not Catholic, as mentioned above, and are not to be taught, as such; but rather are against the doctrine and tradition of the Catholic Church, and against the true interpretation of the sacred Scriptures received from the Church. Now Augustine maintained that her authority had to be accepted so completely that he stated he would not have believed the Gospel unless the authority of the Catholic Church had vouched for it. For, according to these errors, or any one or several of them, it clearly follows that the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit is in error and has always erred. This is against what Christ at his ascension promised to his disciples (as is read in the holy Gospel of Matthew): “I will be with you to the consummation of the world”; it is against the determinations of the holy Fathers, or the express ordinances and canons of the councils and the supreme pontiffs. Failure to comply with these canons, according to the testimony of Cyprian, will be the fuel and cause of all heresy and schism.

With the advice and consent of these our venerable brothers, with mature deliberation on each and every one of the above theses, and by the authority of almighty God, the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and our own authority, we condemn, reprobate, and reject completely each of these theses or errors as either heretical, scandalous, false, offensive to pious ears or seductive of simple minds, and against Catholic truth. By listing them, we decree and declare that all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned, reprobated, and rejected….We restrain all in the virtue of holy obedience and under the penalty of an automatic major excommunication…"
ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/L10EXDOM.HTM
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Thank you for putting the case so starkly.

It is pretty clear that, if you are right and this is still binding, then practically all modern Catholics, including all the Popes of my lifetime, are excommunicated.

Or, in fact, this document is not binding.

Which would mean that for a Catholic living at the time who believed what nearly all of us now regard to be true (that the Holy Spirit does not want heretics to be burned at the stake) the only faithful options would be what I’ve described as 132 or 312.

I for one do not admire Erasmus for backing off on his earlier claims that heretics shouldn’t be burned, which he did. But I do admire him for remaining faithful to the Church. (Although to be strictly accurate, he died in Basel, a Protestant city, and did not receive the Last Rites.)

Also, one could pull the same dodge Luther tried at Leipzig with regards to the condemnations of Hus at Constance, and point out that not all these propositions are listed as heretical. But as Eck pointed out to Luther about Hus, none of them are spoken of as Christian and orthodox. . . .

At any rate, you have highlighted the heart of my argument. Which is as follows:

1. It reasonably appeared to people in 1520 that the Church was teaching that heretics should be burned at the stake.
2. It is now quite clear that the Church does not teach anything of the kind.
3. Therefore, a person in 1520 who took a position of “faithful dissent,” continuing to believe that heretics should not be burned (and practically to save them from being burned if possible) while continuing to submit to Church authorities in all matters not going against the conscience, would have been doing the right thing by the standards of the Catholic Church today.
4. Therefore, Catholics today who take a similar position cannot be condemned on principle.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Clearly? Obviously not to the people of that time, and place.

Well, to some it was.

And clearly we now recognize that those folks–condemned at the time–were right.

At least most of us do.

Some on this forum don’t, and that is disturbing and terrifying.

Your argument would be better served if you had said: "Clearly any death at the hands of another human being (self defense and war not included) goes against the will of the Spirit. You make it sound like more humane ways of execution are okay in the eyes of the Spirit.

A good point. I do think that the brutality of the method makes it more certain that the Spirit would not approve, yes.

There are three issues to consider here:

1. Whether the death penalty is ever legitimate.
2. Whether the death penalty for heretics is legitimate.
3. Whether burning at the stake is a legitimate method of punishment.

I accept the teaching of the Catholic Church, as developed up to this point. That is to say, that the death penalty may be legitimate, but only when there is no other way to defend the innocent, and that it should be applied as humanely as possible. I also do not believe that the Church should encourage or condone the state’s using the death penalty as a punishment for heresy or other spiritual offenses.

Hence, I answer a cautious “yes” to 1 and a resounding “no” to 2 and 3.

Heresy was considered a capital crime. Burning was an accepted form of execution of that particular capital crime by the civil authorities back in the day. Just as hanging, firing squads, electrocution, and lethal injection for capital crimes in later years. Crucifixion was an accepted form in the days of the Roman Empire.

You are surely not suggesting that whatever the secular authorities happen to do is just OK, are you?

You take offense at the pope saying it was not against the will of the Spirit. Clearly the reformers did not, as was proven by their actions during the Reformation.

Untrue. Calvin sought the execution of Servetus, but wanted him beheaded, not burned. Luther later approved of the execution of “seditious” Anabaptists, and certainly the line between sedition and heresy could be thin. But it did exist.

(Luther did say that burning of witches was acceptable.

Is witchcraft worse than heresy?)

Yes, actually it is, assuming that the person is genuinely guilty of witchcraft–i.e., of using magical powers to harm people and/or of deliberately making an alliance with the forces of evil.

But of course I oppose burning witches as well, so this is a red herring.

I look at Leo’s answer as basically saying: that civil authorities have the right to perform that type of capital punishment, which again was the norm for that time in history. Just as in latter years the Church has stated that civil authorities do have the right to exercise capital punishment. I am positive that people through the years have called any form of capital punishment against the will of the Spirit.

This is not about capital punishment in general. It is about a particularly horrific form of capital punishment being inflicted as a temporal penalty for a spiritual crime. Furthermore, given the Church’s laudable desire to avoid handing people over for execution if at all possible, in practice the only people executed were usually the most sincerely pious heretics, who refused to recant because they were deeply convinced that they were following God.

The effect of the Church sanctioning and participating in the brutal killing of some of the most genuinely pious people in late medieval/early modern Europe was utterly disastrous on a spiritual level. It was clearly against the will of the Spirit. If it wasn’t, then I see no way that any of us can possibly know anything about the Spirit at all.

Are drowning, forced starvation, firing squads where intentional wounding of the victim so that they remain alive laying in pain, beheading, lethal injection where you may fight to stay awake knowing that when you close your eyes you are done, lethal injection where they did not administer the shot correctly, electrocution where not enough voltage was administered, …less ickier to you, because they are not to me.

Some of the methods you describe are as bad as burning; some aren’t, necessarily. But I’m not interested to defend any form of capital punishment. I am interested to maintain the proposition that this particular form is clearly wrong and that the execution of this particular category of “criminals” is clearly wrong. And I clearly have all the authorities of the modern Catholic Church on my side on both those points.

 

[Contarini]

Just about everybody’s views nowadays would be considered horrifying in the past. (You mean adultery is not punishable by stoning anymore, and thieves do not get crucified? Send me back to the past.) We look at much of the past as barbaric, without a doubt the future will look at us the same way. (You mean people really said that person who is now 40, was not a human being in the womb. What was it, an alien?)

I think you are falling into the error of “progressivism” here. Moral awareness does not necessarily grow over time. Sometimes it declines.

Surely you agree that truth is unchanging? If the Church’s teachings are revealed by God, and do not change, then the issues you raise are simply irrelevant.

The question here is not whether the Church has a clearer understanding of truth than it did in the 16th century–we all agree on that, I think.

The question is whether that particular condemnation was correct.

You seem to be arguing in a thoroughly “relativist” fashion, that it was correct at the time but we now think differently.

Or am I misunderstanding you?

Are you saying that the Church was affirming the right of the state to execute anyone it chose in any manner it chose? Surely not that either.

So what exactly are you arguing?

Since others have made this “cultural relativism” argument, I will respond to all those posts here:

This is not about condemning people in the past for thinking differently.St. Thomas More is one of my heroes, even though he persecuted heretics.

This is about Church teaching. Leo’s condemnation of Luther’s rejection of the burning of heretics clearly was not, in fact, the definitive, permanent teaching of the Church.

Luther was right on that point, if on no other, and the modern Church recognizes this.

Hence, it is conceivable that dissenters of our own time might turn out to be right. That doesn’t mean that there should be no attempt to maintain doctrinal boundaries and that we should just say, “anything goes.” Quite the contrary. Truth emerges in the conflict between real, sincere dissent and real, meaningful doctrinal boundaries. Sometimes the boundaries hold firm–sometimes they need to be shifted a bit.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

A slight nuance: it would be immoral to do so outside of a divine command by God. What God commands can by no means be considered immoral—since His commands reflect His nature, which is goodness itself—even if our doing so on our own initiative would be. We obviously don’t have an infinite intellect, and our motivation is often sinful, and our behavior is often tainted by original sin. God is in no way subject to the same limitations as we, and we can trust that His judgments reflect the most perfect “solution” to any given “problem.”

The problem with your argument is that you assume that we can be more certain that

1. X is commanded by God
   than we can that
2. X is intrinsically evil.

Through natural law (the participation of our reason in the divine reason), we have the capacity to know, with moral certainty, that certain things are intrinsically evil.

That certainty is much greater than the certainty that is possible concerning any claim of divine revelation.

Therefore, when we are presented with a putative divine revelation commanding something that our reason and conscience tell us is an intrinsic evil, it is always more virtuous and more rational to conclude that this revelation does not really come from God than to shunt aside our basic moral intuitions.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

I can not speak for any one else. But for me, I would not belong to any organization or religion that I fundamentally disagreed with. I would not belong to an organization or religion and then speak ill of it to others. Nor would I speak with disapproval of its teachings to others. When I was a Protestant, I loved the Church I belonged to. I loved the people. I loved the care they gave me when I was a child. I could not accept the fundamental teachings of this precious Church. I did not fight against it. I will never speak speak ill of it. I loved it but I knew that it was hypocritical of me to continue belonging to this Church. So with sorrow, I left. And with gratitude beyond measure I found Christ and His teachings within the Catholic Church.

Of course if you “fundamentally” disagree, with the basic principles, then you have to leave.

That’s what I was trying to parse out with my rather silly numerical codes. As I see it, 321 and 231 do "fundamentally disagree. 132 and 312 don’t.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Does anyone else notice that the vast majority of those (including moi) that disagree with Church doctrines are mainly concerned with social issues and NOT basic theological dogma? I am a cradle Catholic and love the Mass and the community of my Jesuit parish. That I do not agree with and will not support the Chuch’s stance on LGBTQ issues has absolutely nothing to do with my belief in the True Presence. Just let someone try and run me out of the Church - this old lady knows how to swing a mean Designer purse!

But you are assuming that “social issues” aren’t “basic theological dogma.”

I wonder where you get that dichotomy?

Why can the Church teach about sacramental theology but not about the nature and purpose of human sexuality?

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

I know my church makes a distinction between those that are struggling with their own faith, and those that are persistent in voicing their own ideas to others.

 

[Tomdstone]

Through natural law (the participation of our reason in the divine reason), we have the capacity to know, with moral certainty, that certain things are intrinsically evil.

I doubt that you can convince many non-Catholics that artificial birth control is intrinsically evil. Also how do you distinguish between what is intrinsically evil and what is wrong but not intrinsically evil. Take for example, the question of women priests. Is it intrinsically evil to ordain women priests or is it a matter of discipline?

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

At any rate, you have highlighted the heart of my argument. Which is as follows:

1. It reasonably appeared to people in 1520 that the Church was teaching that heretics should be burned at the stake.

I don’t agree that “It reasonably appeared to people”…

I find no official teachings of the Church demanding, authorizing or even suggesting the burning of heretics.

If it was reasonably accepted by people at that time because they ASSUMED it to be a teaching of the Church…again… I find no official Church documents condemning anyone other than Luther for dissenting against the assumed teaching…

 

[Peter_J]

Some on this forum don’t, **and that is disturbing and terrifying. **

This seems to me to be further evidence that “Non-Catholic” (NC) posters are obsessed with what a few Catholics on this forum think or don’t think.

Granted I could be wrong (as implied by the word “seems” ) but I’ve already seen plenty of other evidence anyhow.

 

[Tomdstone]

I find no official teachings of the Church demanding, authorizing or even suggesting the burning of heretics.

If it was reasonably accepted by people at that time because they ASSUMED it to be a teaching of the Church…again… I find no official Church documents condemning anyone other than Luther for dissenting against the assumed teaching…

See: Exsurge Domine and the condemnations given there.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

See: Exsurge Domine and the condemnations given there.

I did.

Firstly that is not a teaching document. It is a condemnation of Martin Luther’s errors.

Pope Leo could have condemned Luther’s constipation…but that would not make it a teaching of the Church.

Furthermore other contemporary theologians and Catholic writers had spoken out about killing heretics…yet they were not condemned or censured by Rome…why?

 

[NovusFidem]

The problem with your argument is that you assume that we can be more certain that

1. X is commanded by God
   than we can that
2. X is intrinsically evil.

Through natural law (the participation of our reason in the divine reason), we have the capacity to know, with moral certainty, that certain things are intrinsically evil.

Intrinsically evil acts are never justified by intention, nor by circumstances, nor by other acts.

If the circumstance given is such that “God commanded it”, I believe it is pretty much justified and, thus, not intrinsically evil.

Also, I suggest some reading on classical Natural Law by St. Thomas Aquinas. We actively participate in the eternal law of God (as you correctly put). However, we do this by using reason in conformity with the Natural Law to discern what is good and evil.

Basically, by reasoning everything correctly, ALL OF US will eventually reach the SAME conclusions (as there is only one Truth). It is not a mere “gut feeling” that tells us that killing is wrong - it is through **reasoning **that we reach that conclusion.

And, again, if the Church is infallible (as all Catholics are called to accept), then She alone can declare with certainty what is moral and what is not.

By this logic, dissenters have yet to reach “moral certainty” (as you put), since they don’t agree with the infallible morality of the Church.

 

[Tomdstone]

I did.

Firstly that is not a teaching document. It is a condemnation of Martin Luther’s errors.

Pope Leo could have condemned Luther’s constipation…but that would not make it a teaching of the Church.

Furthermore other contemporary theologians and Catholic writers had spoken out about killing heretics…yet they were not condemned or censured by Rome…why?

It is an official document.