Should dissenting Catholics be encouraged to leave the Church?

[Peter_J]

I oppose this typographical convention, because I think it lets everybody off the hook by pretending that there are two completely separate things under discussion, when really there are rival definitions of one thing.

Edwin

Not so. If those who hold an alternative definition(s) of the word “Catholic” fail to get their message out, then that’s their own fault.

Personally, I like the convention of using “Catholics” to mean only those of us who are ICWR, and “catholics” to mean Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans. (Actually, that’s not exactly the same as what Thorolfr proposed.) The main limitation, I think, is the fact that the distinction is impossible (or at least extremely inconvenient) in spoken language.

But really, the greater issue here is not terminological: rather it is the fact that some do not realize that there’s a distinction between ex-Catholic and never-been-Catholic. (A marginally-relevant tidbit from my own life: in discussions with Eastern Orthodox, I have many times pointed out to them that I’m a “never-been-Orthodox”, not an ex-Orthodox.)

 

[angelic06]

Contarini,

Before this thread gets closed down, let me just say this.

I do not know what form of Christianity you practice, but you should remember that this is the Catholic Answers Forums. Thus, those of us who are practicing Catholics cannot really, in good conscience, encourage people to leave the Catholic Church if we take seriously the claim that is the Church of Christ.

Perhaps the fact that dissident Catholics have not wholesale left is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in their lives, from our point of view. Those of us who do know Catholics who have left spend much time praying for their return, even if we should have to do it until our final hour, and even if they should return at their final hour.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

the document says that everyone is bound by it, not just Martin Luther. It specifically says that " all the faithful of both sexes must regard them as condemned"
“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…”
papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Exsurge Domine remains a very controversial document, to this day, among Catholic theologians and Church historians. Anti-Catholics like to refer to Error 33. “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit.” as an indication that the Church officially taught that “God wanted heretics burned at the stake”.

Simply reading the entire document proves this is not so.

Therefore we can, without any further citation or delay, proceed against him to his condemnation and damnation as one whose faith is notoriously suspect and in fact a true heretic with the full severity of each and all of the above penalties and censures. Yet, with the advice of our brothers, imitating the mercy of almighty God who does not wish the death of a sinner but rather that he be converted and live, and forgetting all the injuries inflicted on us and the Apostolic See, we have decided to use all the compassion we are capable of. It is our hope, so far as in us lies, that he will experience a change of heart by taking the road of mildness we have proposed, return, and turn away from his errors. We will receive him kindly as the prodigal son returning to the embrace of the Church.

papalencyclicals.net/Leo10/l10exdom.htm

Another thing to remember it that pope Leo is telling the faithful that they must “regard” the Errors as condemned. Essentially this is not a teaching document. He is not telling us that it is a matter of doctrinal belief.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The way I see it, and I can’t claim to speak authoritatively here, you were validly baptized into Christ’s Church, which subsists entirely in the Catholic Church (which includes the Roman Church and the other 22 sui juris Churches in communion with Rome).

But while you are part of the “Catholic” Church, you are in imperfect communion due to the heresies of the separated Churches (note: the Church does not consider you a heretic, assuming you were baptized and raised as a Lutheran; she does not impose the sin of heresy on those who did not cause the heresy in the first place, but were simply born into that Church or joined it without full knowledge about the true nature of the Catholic Church).

I don’t spend much time thinking about this because I strive to focus on God knowing the heart. But I do see this word, heretic, tossed about here on CAF. If both a Lutheran and a Catholic each know Catholic teaching and what the CC teaches about its nature, but the Lutheran not believing so does not enter… the Catholic not believing so does not faithfully remain… Does the Lutheran still get off the hook and is not a heretic? But the Catholic with similar beliefs has no way to leave and is?

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I haven’t read through all the replies, so I apologize if this has already been mentioned. From what I was told, more or less, these are three ways one can dissent from Catholic teaching:

1. Does not publicly go against the Church in any way; 2. Researches diligently for the Truth; 3. That it is a personal issue and that then individual recognizes it is not the Church but them.

 

[JustaServant]

Contarini,

Before this thread gets closed down, let me just say this.

I do not know what form of Christianity you practice, but you should remember that this is the Catholic Answers Forums. Thus, those of us who are practicing Catholics cannot really, in good conscience, encourage people to leave the Catholic Church if we take seriously the claim that is the Church of Christ.

Perhaps the fact that dissident Catholics have not wholesale left is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in their lives, from our point of view. Those of us who do know Catholics who have left spend much time praying for their return, even if we should have to do it until our final hour, and even if they should return at their final hour.

I think Contarini’s good reputation on CAF is the only reason this thread hasn’t been closed. As an intelligent non-Catholic his question is logical and not asked with malice.
Besides, I think he knew what the answer would be anyway.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Contarini,

Before this thread gets closed down, let me just say this.

I do not know what form of Christianity you practice, but you should remember that this is the Catholic Answers Forums. Thus, those of us who are practicing Catholics cannot really, in good conscience, encourage people to leave the Catholic Church if we take seriously the claim that is the Church of Christ.

Perhaps the fact that dissident Catholics have not wholesale left is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in their lives, from our point of view. Those of us who do know Catholics who have left spend much time praying for their return, even if we should have to do it until our final hour, and even if they should return at their final hour.

This is very good to hear, but I recall many times on various forums people in despair over ‘progressive’ Roman Catholics who challenge certain teachings. ‘They should leave’ or ‘How can they call themselves Catholics?’ More than one has claimed that the Church would be better/stronger if they left.

I would like to hear your thoughts.

 

[Contarini]

Contarini,

Before this thread gets closed down, let me just say this.

I do not know what form of Christianity you practice, but you should remember that this is the Catholic Answers Forums. Thus, those of us who are practicing Catholics cannot really, in good conscience, encourage people to leave the Catholic Church if we take seriously the claim that is the Church of Christ.

Perhaps the fact that dissident Catholics have not wholesale left is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in their lives, from our point of view. Those of us who do know Catholics who have left spend much time praying for their return, even if we should have to do it until our final hour, and even if they should return at their final hour.

Just to clarify some things: my own answer, in case it isn’t clear (which I thought it was) would be resoundingly “no.” Except possibly in the case of what I called above “321” and “231,” but even then I think the proper approach is to encourage people gently to think about whether their desire to remain in the Church might not indicate that they should be putting “1” (confidence in the Church’s authority) higher than they do.

I myself have been Episcopalian since 1998. However, before that time and throughout the entire time since I have been wrestling with the question of whether I should be Catholic. In terms of the paradigm I laid out at the beginning of this thread, I am at worst a 132 about everything that the Church currently insists on as a condition of communion. That is to say, even with regard to the things I have the most difficulties with (like women’s ordination), I am more confident that the Church is true than I am either that the Church definitively teaches the impossibility of women’s ordination or that women should be ordained. The reason I’ve been harping on some of the past issues like the persecution of heretics is that on some of those issues I’m 312. That is to say, it seems clear to me both that Leo’s condemnation of proposition #33 in Exsurge Domine was mistaken and that it is not, in fact, the permanent, binding teaching of the Church. But it sure looked like it at the time, and if I had lived in the sixteenth century I would have been told (as Erasmus was) that I was unorthodox.

I was in RCIA for about the fourth or fifth time last year, and dropped out yet again. But I can’t bring myself either to recommit to the Episcopal Church (I moved to Kentucky last year and have been attending the Episcopal church with my wife, who is in the ordination process, but have not formally transferred my membership and don’t have a good conscience about doing so, especially since the recent formal acceptance of gay marriage by General Convention) or to commit to a different non-Catholic church (I’ve also been attending the Methodist church with my parents, with whom we are now living–it was actually my enthusiasm for this particular congregation and my revived interest in my Wesleyan heritage in general that stopped me from going through with conversion this past year).

So I’m in limbo, and I know that’s not a healthy place to be.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Just to clarify some things: my own answer, in case it isn’t clear (which I thought it was) would be resoundingly “no.” Except possibly in the case of what I called above “321” and “231,” but even then I think the proper approach is to encourage people gently to think about whether their desire to remain in the Church might not indicate that they should be putting “1” (confidence in the Church’s authority) higher than they do.

I myself have been Episcopalian since 1998. However, before that time and throughout the entire time since I have been wrestling with the question of whether I should be Catholic. In terms of the paradigm I laid out at the beginning of this thread, I am at worst a 132 about everything that the Church currently insists on as a condition of communion. That is to say, even with regard to the things I have the most difficulties with (like women’s ordination), I am more confident that the Church is true than I am either that the Church definitively teaches the impossibility of women’s ordination or that women should be ordained. The reason I’ve been harping on some of the past issues like the persecution of heretics is that on some of those issues I’m 312.

You might also consider the method proposed by Carl O. Winslow, when he asked “321, 123, what the heck is bothering me?” (Family Matters, 1992)

 

[Thorolfr]

I was in RCIA for about the fourth or fifth time last year, and dropped out yet again. But I can’t bring myself either to recommit to the Episcopal Church (I moved to Kentucky last year and have been attending the Episcopal church with my wife, who is in the ordination process, but have not formally transferred my membership and don’t have a good conscience about doing so, especially since the recent formal acceptance of gay marriage by General Convention) or to commit to a different non-Catholic church (I’ve also been attending the Methodist church with my parents, with whom we are now living–it was actually my enthusiasm for this particular congregation and my revived interest in my Wesleyan heritage in general that stopped me from going through with conversion this past year).

I find it interesting that you are unsure of the teachings of the Catholic Church which bar women’s ordination when it just so happens that that issue touches your family personally since your wife is seeking ordination in the Episcopal Church but have no problem with the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality and in fact appear to be struggling with remaining in the Episcopal Church because they have accepted gay marriage. Would you feel the same about this issue if perhaps you had a gay child or other close family member? When something affects someone closely and personally, it sometimes changes how they view it.

 

[Contarini]

I find it interesting that you are unsure of the teachings of the Catholic Church which bar women’s ordination when it just so happens that that issue touches your family personally since your wife is seeking ordination in the Episcopal Church but have no problem with the teachings of the Catholic Church on sexuality and in fact appear to be struggling with remaining in the Episcopal Church because they have accepted gay marriage. Would you feel the same about this issue if perhaps you had a gay child or other close family member?

Probably not. That’s a fair point. Our personal experiences certainly shape our intellectual views. But we still have to do the best we can.

To be clear: I am not in fact entirely certain that the Catholic Church is right in its stance on human sexuality. I think it is, but to use my numerical code I"m 123 on this, not 213.

I appreciate authors such as James Alison, or the pacifist activist Stan Goff I mentioned earlier, who are dissenters on homosexuality. I take their arguments very seriously.

My fundamental issue with the Episcopal Church’s recent decision on gay marriage is that since the Episcopal Church is not the universal Church, I can have no confidence that its radical step of changing the historic meaning of a sacrament is correct. If the Catholic Church took such a step, I would follow.

And if I lived before the Episcopal Church ordained women, I would in good conscience have had to oppose such a step too for the same reason.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J View Post
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.

Here’s the thing, though: you say “attracts a lot of viewers”, but I see it as those viewers making a choice in what posts they are going to consume.

I’ve seen, in my time, a very large number of back-and-forth posts between Protestants (especially Lutherans) and Catholics, and over-and-over I see a certain pattern: certain types of posts “attract” Protestant posters, and then Protestant posters will take what one or two internet denizens say and treat it as the Catholic position. (Granted, this can be more true of one Lutheran poster than another – and even *possibly *more true of Lutheran posters here generally than other Protestants.)

 

[Peter_J]

Here’s the thing, though: you say “attracts a lot of viewers”, but I see it as those viewers making a choice in what posts they are going to consume.

I’ve seen, in my time, a very large number of back-and-forth posts between Protestants (especially Lutherans) and Catholics, and over-and-over I see a certain pattern: certain types of posts “attract” Protestant posters, and then Protestant posters will take what one or two internet denizens say and treat it as the Catholic position. (Granted, this can be more true of one Lutheran poster than another – and even *possibly *more true of Lutheran posters here generally than other Protestants.)

P.S. Contarini, if you’ll permit me to go off a little bit, I can’t help thinking of a movie I keep seeing ads for (haven’t decided if I’m going to see it yet): the Morton Downey Jr. Movie. Taking what we’re talking about here to an extreme, couldn’t one say that he “attract[ed] a lot of viewers”? But it seems to me that those viewers made a choice to watch him – and, by extension, made a choice to make him a star.

 

[Peter_J]

Peter, you may be right.

But this forum is an extremely large one that attracts a lot of viewers, and it’s attached to a very powerful, influential Catholic apologetics ministry.

Look at the “five non-negotiables,”

The conversation does not necessarily need to use the terminology “non-negotiables” … but one way or another, we need to be wary.

I was recently reading about non-negotiables on the EWTN website. I think this one brief comment (from 2004, as you’ll probably guess) hits the nail on the head:
“it appeared to me you are taking the position that it doesn’t matter if a person votes for Kerry, since Bush is no better.”
Unfortunately, she doesn’t elaborate on why she said that (you can read the whole exchange here if you wish) but regardless, what’s important here is that we elect “better” (especially better-on-abortion) candidates (even if they are not perfect).

 

[Peter_J]

The conversation does not necessarily need to use the terminology “non-negotiables” … but one way or another, we need to be wary.

I was recently reading about non-negotiables on the EWTN website. I think this one brief comment (from 2004, as you’ll probably guess) hits the nail on the head:

Edit: Actually, “hits the nail on the head” might be overly positive.

I think I could put it with better nuance than that.

Humbly,
Peter Jericho.