What does disagreeing with a Church teaching mean

[LilyM]

Do you think you could end an ectopic pregnancy?

If both the child and I were guaranteed to die if it were not ended, and if there was absolutely no way of saving the child even if the pregnancy continued, sure.

Life is precious, it is a gift from God. The idea is to save as many lives, and whichever lives, feasibly can be saved in any given situation. And to let every life last as long as it can without ending the lives of others. Which is why euthanasia is also wrong. And I say ‘ending’ as in literally killing them, not just making them ill or inconvenienced in other ways.

Heck, every pregnancy is an intrusion of sorts on the mother’s body, even the healthiest, and certainly an inconvenience. I’ve watched seven times as my sisters have gone through pregnancy and birth, it all takes a big toll. So by your logic ANY baby in ANY circumstances can be aborted willy-nilly as an ‘invader’.

More importantly - if the Church is wrong on this infallibly defined teaching, then by what logic can you claim to know that it’s right on anything else - from God existing on downwards? Why bother being Catholic or calling yourself Catholic? Why bother rocking up to Church every week and professing belief in an instituion that you in fact do NOT really believe in?

 

[insideitall]

I agree with what some previous posters have said - I don’t think it’s necessary to agree with every teaching, as long as you follow it and don’t encourage others to ignore it, and are praying for guidance and studying the reasoning behind the area you have a problem with. Sometimes you’ll just have to suck it up, though. That’s life, especially a Christian one. Christianity is not supposed to be easy.

I also agree with the idea that the main reason people have problems with specific teachings is because it somehow hampers their “freedom” to do whatever they want. For example, people using ABC because they want to be able to have sex whenever, or having an abortion because being pregnant would be inconvienent. People want to do what they want to do, without having any consequences. Also, the “I know better than anyone else, especially those stuffy ol’ clergymen” mindset doesn’t help, either.

 

[kage_ar]

Back to the original topic. What does disagreeingn with a Church teaching mean?

This question is for all, not just Catholics.

What does it mean if you disagree with a church teaching? What does it mean if you disagree but obey the teaching? Are we required to agree with the teaching or to accept the teaching and obey?

For Catholics, if you know the answer to this question, can you post a source for me?

Non-Catholics do not give a rat’s hiney if what they believe disagrees with Church teaching.

As a mother who has LIVED THROUGH an ectopic pregnancy, I take great offense that you would consider the surgery to remove the ruptured tube as I bled out to be the same as a direct abortion.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

It’s not up to **anyone **to decide population and population densities, especially not governments. Each couple has the God-give right to have children and to make their **own **family decisions. If they have just reasons to limit their family size they may certainly do so via natural family planning.

In fact, in China, NFP is widely practiced and in India as well. Your argument for the Pill is misplaced. The Pill is expensive and not well suited to third world countries. It is not widely used in these places at all. Your argument is really for contraception and sterilization-- neither of which is needed to space/limit the number of children a family has.

Your old Protestant pastor was an ignorant man.

None of the above.

In a debate he’d have floored you. He was not an ignorant man, and immensely spiritual.

I think you’re arrogant.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

It’s not up to **anyone **to decide population and population densities, especially not governments. Each couple has the God-give right to have children and to make their **own **family decisions. If they have just reasons to limit their family size they may certainly do so via natural family planning.

In fact, in China, NFP is widely practiced and in India as well. Your argument for the Pill is misplaced. The Pill is expensive and not well suited to third world countries. It is not widely used in these places at all. Your argument is really for contraception and sterilization-- neither of which is needed to space/limit the number of children a family has.

None of the above.

You claim contraceptives aren’t suitable for third world countries. Yet with the exception of Africa, the average use of contraceptives by married women world wide is about 62% according to the “World Contraceptive Use 2001”, a wall chart issued by the United Nations Population Division as part of its ongoing monitoring of world use of family planning.

World Contraceptive Use 2001

Substantial Use Increase in 1990s

Worldwide, 62 per cent or 650 million of the more than 1 billion married or in-union women of reproductive age are using contraception. In the more developed regions, 70 per cent of married women use a method of contraception, while in the less developed regions 60 per cent do. In Africa, only 25 per cent are using it, whereas in Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean prevalence of contraceptive use is fairly high-66 per cent and 69 per cent, respectively.

And in China …

Research by the United Nations Population Fund published in 2003 indicates that the use of contraception in China is almost universal ¨C at 83 percent.

China, in fact, leads the world in the use of contraception. However, that does not reflect the whole picture.

China’s family planning policy is aimed mainly at married women, and it emphasizes long-term or permanent methods of contraception.

A study conducted in 2004 by the Medical Center of Fudan University in Shanghai and the International Health Research Group found premarital sex among China’s urban youth was becoming more common.

It also found that the abortion rate among unmarried women was alarmingly high. The use of contraception such as condoms or the contraceptive pill remains low, which accounts in part for the high abortion rate among China’s young women.

The Fudan University report concluded “there is a large unmet need for temporary methods of contraception in urban areas of China.”

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I don’t agree with premarital sex. But you’ll note the high abortion rate amongst unmarried mothers in China. And of the prime reasons is that they don’t use contraception.

And that’s why I believe Christ turned up and told Pope John Paul 1 He wanted the ruling rescinded. It gives the abortionists an excuse and a big one at that.

Finally, you seem to have a flippant attitude towards God’s interest in who He chooses for Pope, if you think He’s so blase about it He’d let the Church choose a man who’s going to die a month later.

But I suppose in your wisdom the 83% of Chinese married women using contraceptives should just stop using them. After all finding food, accommodation, jobs, infrastructure, energy, education and transport for a couple of billion people isn’t your problem, is it?

 

[guanophore]

I suspect I may be the bloke who disagrees with the church’s teaching on the pill, and I’ll go on disagreeing with it.

Now, if you agree with it, tell me what the Chinese and Indians should do about their burgeoning population, with the following statistics from Wikipedia -

1 China, People’s Republic of[5] 1,331,650,000 July 6, 2009 19.67% of world population.
2 India 1,165,970,000 July 6, 2009 17.22 % of world population.

Leading Population densities - admittedly these are small nations -

1 Macau (PRC) density per square mile - 48,450 people
2 Monaco - density per square mile - 43,780 people
3 Singapore - density per square mile - 17,650 people
4 Hong Kong (PRC) density per square mile - 16,380 people
5 Gibraltar (UK) - density per square mile - 13,260 people

So, what would you traditionalists (ie. the church never makes mistakes) regard as suitable populations and population densities?

Mankind was created under certain conditions, and commanded to function under certain parameters. When we fail to do that, our society and our stewardship of the world get out of control. The answer is not to create more artificial means to serve our own flesh, but to return to a right relationship with God, and others.

Your perspective seems to indicate that human beings are compelled to lust for the flesh, to breed like rabbits, and to interact with one another separate from the conscienciousness of God which is how we are made.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Mankind was created under certain conditions, and commanded to function under certain parameters. When we fail to do that, our society and our stewardship of the world get out of control. The answer is not to create more artificial means to serve our own flesh, but to return to a right relationship with God, and others.

Your perspective seems to indicate that human beings are compelled to lust for the flesh, to breed like rabbits, and to interact with one another separate from the conscienciousness of God which is how we are made.

I’d have thought that someone who thought contraceptives should not be used was the one guilty of thinking humans should “breed like rabbits”. Remember the oversized Catholic families of yesteryear, when we didn’t have practical contraceptives? Maybe the 83% of married Chinese women who use contraceptives should use them and in one generation go from one or two children to six or ten? So that in fifty years they’d have ten billion people instead of the meagre 1.3 billion they’ve got now?

As for the lust of the flesh, God is the one who designed sexual attraction, which is still the factor which drives men and women together.

So what you’re saying is that all those married couples out there who use contraceptives, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, are out of fellowship with God. You’ve got to be kidding.

I’ll go on believing the church has made a mistake.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I’d have thought that someone who thought contraceptives should not be used was the one guilty of thinking humans should “breed like rabbits”. Remember the oversized Catholic families of yesteryear, when we didn’t have practical contraceptives? Maybe the 83% of married Chinese women who use contraceptives should use them and in one generation go from one or two children to six or ten? So that in fifty years they’d have ten billion people instead of the meagre 1.3 billion they’ve got now?

As for the lust of the flesh, God is the one who designed sexual attraction, which is still the factor which drives men and women together.

So what you’re saying is that all those married couples out there who use contraceptives, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, are out of fellowship with God. You’ve got to be kidding.

I’ll go on believing the church has made a mistake.

Correction - “Maybe the 83% of Chinese women who use contraceptives should STOP using them and in one generation go from one or two children to six or ten?”

 

[kalt]

Non-Catholics do not give a rat’s hiney if what they believe disagrees with Church teaching.

As a mother who has LIVED THROUGH an ectopic pregnancy, I take great offense that you would consider the surgery to remove the ruptured tube as I bled out to be the same as a direct abortion.

I’m sure the non-Catholics don’t care about disagreeing with the Catholic Church’s teaching. But they do have their own church’s, synagogue’s or temple’s teachings to think about. (I’ll leave your language out of this.)

The moderator politely asked us to keep this on topic, so I’m not going to answer your point.

 

[guanophore]

I’d have thought that someone who thought contraceptives should not be used was the one guilty of thinking humans should “breed like rabbits”.

Fruitful multiplication does not equate to mindless, souless, Godless sex.

As for the lust of the flesh, God is the one who designed sexual attraction, which is still the factor which drives men and women together.

And He created marriage, and commandments, so that there would be a structure in which the attraction would properly function.

So what you’re saying is that all those married couples out there who use contraceptives, Catholic, Protestant or whatever, are out of fellowship with God. You’ve got to be kidding.

Their intimate relations have been contaminated with the culture of death in which we live. Yes, contamination by the world, the flesh, and the devil do compromise our fellowship with our creator.

I’ll go on believing the church has made a mistake.

Why do you claim to be catholic? Your faith is not Catholic. You have separated yourself from the Catholic faith.

I have always been confused as to why people would want to publicly claim to be something they are not.

You give a good answer to the OP, however. You have demonstrated that one of the meanings of dissenting from a Church teaching is that one can willfully abandon the Catholic faith, even without realizing that they have done so.

 

[kalt]

I already gave you an answer for this, I said: “It is too serious a matter and in your case you need a very detailed answer because obviously you don’t buy what people have told you this far.”

If you insist upon only seeking out information here, you evidently are just looking for people to argue with and not actually interested in THE answer. There are people who are experts in this subject. Seek them out!

You are precisely right… and this is why, as a Catholic, you should believe that the Church has the authority of God to rule on matters concerning faith and MORALS. So, an interesting question that I feel is necessary is, do you actually believe that your Church has the authority to rule on matters of faith and morals? Because your question here shows that apparently you do not think it has the authority to rule on morals.

An ironic statement considering what this thread is titled and concentrated on. But, by all means, I have been wrong before, please show where I am out of line.

That appears to be a very long-winded way of saying, “I don’t know how to answer the question you’re asking.”

And for everyone. How, according to the Church, are we supposed to handle fellow Catholics who don’t understand how the Church has come to some conclusion? They know what the teaching says, but can’t figure out how the Church came to the particular conclusion. They see the same evidence and conclude something different. How are Catholics supposed to deal with those who don’t get it?

 

[kalt]

If both the child and I were guaranteed to die if it were not ended, and if there was absolutely no way of saving the child even if the pregnancy continued, sure.

Life is precious, it is a gift from God. The idea is to save as many lives, and whichever lives, feasibly can be saved in any given situation. And to let every life last as long as it can without ending the lives of others. Which is why euthanasia is also wrong. And I say ‘ending’ as in literally killing them, not just making them ill or inconvenienced in other ways.

Heck, every pregnancy is an intrusion of sorts on the mother’s body, even the healthiest, and certainly an inconvenience. I’ve watched seven times as my sisters have gone through pregnancy and birth, it all takes a big toll. So by your logic ANY baby in ANY circumstances can be aborted willy-nilly as an ‘invader’.

More importantly - if the Church is wrong on this infallibly defined teaching, then by what logic can you claim to know that it’s right on anything else - from God existing on downwards? Why bother being Catholic or calling yourself Catholic? Why bother rocking up to Church every week and professing belief in an instituion that you in fact do NOT really believe in?

Well, that isn’t what I said about abortion (It’s not what I said at all, as I’m not pro-abortion.). But the moderator asked us to get this back on topic, so…

 

[kage_ar]

How are Catholics supposed to deal with those who don’t get it?

As someone once said, the Church IS Truth. If the Church says one thing and I think another, it is up to me to study and pray and have my heart and mind changed to conform with God’s Truth.

How do other Catholics help their fellows? It is one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy that we all know.

 

[guanophore]

That appears to be a very long-winded way of saying, “I don’t know how to answer the question you’re asking.”

And for everyone. How, according to the Church, are we supposed to handle fellow Catholics who don’t understand how the Church has come to some conclusion? They know what the teaching says, but can’t figure out how the Church came to the particular conclusion. They see the same evidence and conclude something different. How are Catholics supposed to deal with those who don’t get it?

casherman gave you the answer to this one, also. We are to educate ourselves, and seek spiritual direction. If you have been given the answers (which you have) and you still cannot reconcile them in yourself, then you are to take up your cross, and carry it.

Do you think that Abraham understood why God told him to go sacrifice his only son?

We follow Him in obedience, even when we do not understand everything, trusting that He will reveal to us all that we need to know at the appropriate times.

Jesus said that those who love Him will keep His commandments. He did not say we would understand everything.

 

[kage_ar]

I’m sure the non-Catholics don’t care about disagreeing with the Catholic Church’s teaching. But they do have their own church’s, synagogue’s or temple’s teachings to think about. (I’ll leave your language out of this.)

They trot off and either find a church or synagogue or temple that has beliefs that fit theirs… not finding that, they start their own. How do you think we ended up with 30,000 denominations?

And, you could have added a simple “I am sorry” for the dig.

 

[kalt]

I agree with what some previous posters have said - I don’t think it’s necessary to agree with every teaching, as long as you follow it and don’t encourage others to ignore it, and are praying for guidance and studying the reasoning behind the area you have a problem with. Sometimes you’ll just have to suck it up, though. That’s life, especially a Christian one. Christianity is not supposed to be easy.

I also agree with the idea that the main reason people have problems with specific teachings is because it somehow hampers their “freedom” to do whatever they want. For example, people using ABC because they want to be able to have sex whenever, or having an abortion because being pregnant would be inconvienent. People want to do what they want to do, without having any consequences. Also, the “I know better than anyone else, especially those stuffy ol’ clergymen” mindset doesn’t help, either.

The thing is, I don’t have a problem with something that the Church church teaching on abortion, except that it seem inconsistant in the case of ectopic pregnancy. If someone could make sense of that for me, it would be great.

But the moderator asked us to keep this on topic, and the original question was about what it means to disagree.

I know that we’re required to “accept” these teachings. But what does accepting these teachings mean? Obviously, we’re required to act in accordance with the teachings. That’s a no-brainer. But are we required to understand every teaching, though it makes no sense to us? These teachings aren’t supposed to be mysteries, like the Trinity, I’m thinking.

If we look at the evidence and see an inconsistancy that no one seems able to clarify for us, are we required to forget about it and go on without thinking? If we don’t understand the teaching, either stop thinking or find another church (as one poster advised)? Can we go on thinking and researching, all the while disagreeing with the conclusion, and still be in good standing with the Church? Is there a time limit? If there is, at what point do you get cut off?

It seems to me that the Church would rather have people think about the teachings and try to figure them out, than to have a bunch of mindless sheep who don’t understand, or worse, never bothered to think about anything. Well, I suppose the dumb sheep are easier to lead, but what’s the value in a flock of idiotic sheep?

 

[Bob_Crowley]

Fruitful multiplication does not equate to mindless, souless, Godless sex.

And He created marriage, and commandments, so that there would be a structure in which the attraction would properly function.

Their intimate relations have been contaminated with the culture of death in which we live. Yes, contamination by the world, the flesh, and the devil do compromise our fellowship with our creator.

Why do you claim to be catholic? Your faith is not Catholic. You have separated yourself from the Catholic faith.

I have always been confused as to why people would want to publicly claim to be something they are not.

You give a good answer to the OP, however. You have demonstrated that one of the meanings of dissenting from a Church teaching is that one can willfully abandon the Catholic faith, even without realizing that they have done so.

You amaze me. You honestly believe that a married Catholic couple who choose, according to their own conscience, to have a family of three children, barring “accidents”, by the use of contraception have been contaminated by the culture of death?

I regard myself as Catholic, whether you believe it or not. Nobody set you up as my judge to decide whether I’m Catholic or not.

I believe the Pope’s rulings are “binding” as specified by Christ. But I equally believe the church can make mistakes. In fact, back in the late Middle Ages, there was so much corruption in the Church, it led to a violent Reformation. We had Popes with mistresses, Popes with immense wealth, Popes engaged in murder and assassination.

I take the business of “Infallibility” with a grain of salt.

 

[kalt]

Fruitful multiplication does not equate to mindless, souless, Godless sex.

And He created marriage, and commandments, so that there would be a structure in which the attraction would properly function.

Their intimate relations have been contaminated with the culture of death in which we live. Yes, contamination by the world, the flesh, and the devil do compromise our fellowship with our creator.

Why do you claim to be catholic? Your faith is not Catholic. You have separated yourself from the Catholic faith.

I have always been confused as to why people would want to publicly claim to be something they are not.

You give a good answer to the OP, however. You have demonstrated that one of the meanings of dissenting from a Church teaching is that one can willfully abandon the Catholic faith, even without realizing that they have done so.

I’m so sick of this attitude of Catholics toward fellow Catholics on this forum.

If this person says he’s Catholic, he’s Catholic. It isn’t up to you to decide what religion someone is. Besides, I’m pretty sure that calling someone’s faith into question is against the forum rules.

You may be assenting to all the Catholic teachings. Heck, you might even actually understand one or two of them. But you’re sure missing the ball on the whole Christian thing.

You get bonus points for following the letter of the law, though–at least according to you self-reporting on this forum.

And this brings up another question on the disagreeing with the Church theme. What if you agree to say that you believe all that the Church teaches, though you don’t understand every teaching, but act like a nasty piece of work, and there is another person who is more open about not agreeing with a teaching because it doesn’t make sense to them, but they’re usually a pretty decent person who obeys the teaching anyway? Is one or the other in better shape with the Church? Which one?

I guess I’m asking if agreeing with a teaching is enough. If you agree with a teaching, say Christian charity, but act like you don’t, is that worse than disagreeing with a teaching, but acting (by your actions) like you do?

 

[1ke]

That appears to be a very long-winded way of saying, “I don’t know how to answer the question you’re asking.”

I’ve twice posted an answer to your question. Have you read my post and the links that I provided at your request to Church documentation (the Catechism)?

And for everyone. How, according to the Church, are we supposed to handle fellow Catholics who don’t understand how the Church has come to some conclusion?

I’m not sure what you mean by “handle?” We should “handle” them the same way we “handle” everyone else-- with charity. If we can help them with their difficulty, we should do so. That can take many forms-- lending them a book, discussing a topic with them, teaching a class at the parish, etc. I’m not even sure how/if we would know someone has a such an issue unless they told us. And, if they told us, I would presume they are of some acquaintance-- meaning, someone who I know well. In that case, I would help them with what I noted above: books, offers of discussion, pointing to church documents they can read, offering an opportunity for them to come to RCIA to learn or bible study, etc.

They know what the teaching says, but can’t figure out how the Church came to the particular conclusion. They see the same evidence and conclude something different. How are Catholics supposed to deal with those who don’t get it?

Charity, patience, and prayer for them. Certainly they are in a difficult position. In RCIA I am asked this question by inquirers, sometimes taking the form of “if you disagree with the Church what do you do?” or (since I’m a convert) “what did YOU do?”

My answer is always the same:

The Church cannot err. If I disagree, it is a defect in my understanding and my knowledge no in Church teaching. So, I just kept studying and praying. I did not understand a number of Church teachings when I came into the Church. But, I did understand objective truth, infallibility, and unity. These things are laid out in Scripture. My conversion centered on the authority of the Church. Accepting that meant that the Church was correct-- with certainty. Therefore, it is I who err. **That certainly was the first step on the road to understanding. **

Regarding those things I did not understand or “agree” with (“agree” is a strong word because I certainly assented to everything) I read books, I got online, I joined some forums that challenged me to research what the Church taught and why… then one day “click” the world righted itself and I understood. Not only did I understand, I SAW. I saw the reality, and from that point forward the way I used to think no longer made sense to me at all. “How could I have believed that?” It was like St. Paul said-- right now we see dimly, but then we will see clearly. If you keep studying, pray, and will yourself to be open to God’s Truth then eventually you will come to understand or at least accept Church teaching with an open heart as “the Truth.” We don’t fully understand the Trinity, and never will, but I accept it as True. Same can go for the moral truths the Church teaches.

 

[1ke]

Bob Crowley, The moderator has asked us to stay on topic, therefore I will not reply to your post to me on abortion, contraception, and population, etc.

Perhaps start a new thread if you wish to discuss these things.