What does disagreeing with a Church teaching mean

[guanophore]

Right, and as I said, I don’t disobey, though I disagree. I’m willing to say that I don’t understand, because my disagreement doesn’t mean that the Church (or any other expert on a subject, for that matter) is wrong.

Obedience without understanding like this reflects a humility of spirit for which you are to be commended. God will bless such a disposition and fruit will be born.

But how are other Catholics supposed to deal with the ones who disagree? Are they supposed to tell them to leave the Church?

This seems like a very inappropriate attitude to me. Why would one not affirm such obedience of faith? Asking someone to leave is contrary to the teaching of the Church, as evidence by the catechism.

This was suggested on this forum, and it doesn’t sound quite Christian. But then, neither does ending an ectopic pregnancy square w/ the teaching on abortion.

I agree with you about the uncharitable response. However one must be mindful that most of those who disagree do not do so with an attitude of humility and disobedience. Most of them have already left the Catholic faith,but do not know it.

As far as treatment of ectopic pregnancy, you are in error. Treatment for medical conditions that may risk the life of the person(s) being treated does not conflict with the teaching of the Church.

The deliberate taking of innocent life (solely for the convenience of the individual) is always and everywhere wrong.

So, how are Catholics directed to deal with fellow Catholics who are trying to understand a teaching?

I think the catechism entry on this subject was posted above. This represents the appropriate attitude. Search the thread for catechism. If you don’t find it, one of us can post it again. Or, search the catechism for “mental reservation”.

Also, it seems that someone who understands the teaching should be able to make it clear.

It is true that we should always be ready to give an account for the hope that is within is. However, there are a majority of Catholics who are quite ignorant about their faith, and do not understand many of the Teachings of the Church, much less explain them. I hope that, as you sort it all out for yourself, you will eventually become one of those that is able to do this much needed taskl

Is it possible that many here don’t really understand the difference and are just choosing not to muddle through the details until they do? I gave a very similar example to the situation, and I asked how the Church would rule on it. Not one person responded to that question. Does everyone here have a clear enough understanding of the teaching that they can apply it to other situations?

Most of us have a very long way to go. As it turns out, people such as yourself who are doing the hard work of muddling become the best teachers.

 

[guanophore]

All non-Catholics who disagree with teachings pull up stakes and find another place to roost, or start a new denomination? That sounds like a blanket statement to me.

I know it’s common to do that, but everyone doesn’t. So, I was hoping to find out from them how differences of opinion are dealt with. Since you brought up walking away, I wonder at what point do they walk away. What kinds of differences are likely to cause a split?

Of course I would like this information from the horses mouth.

I agree, it is a blanket statement. But, Protestant congregations are full of “ex-Catholics” for just this reason. I have read on this Board Protestants bragging that 80% of their evangelical congregations are “ex-Catholics” and they are proud of it.

For myself, it was not so much a teaching with which I disagreed as it was not knowing my faith. I was evangelized in high school by some Baptists who had the courage to carry their bibles to school. I was impressed with their faith. In college, I learned to read the Scripture for the first time, and fell in love with it. I ended up going to a Protestant seminary so I could learn Greek and Hebrew.

From my experience on CAF, I would say that most Catholics depart over teachings relating to things “below the waist”.

 

[guanophore]

Amazing how some of you people have so much insight that you can declare yourselves an expert on someone else’s spiritual status. “You’re Catholic”, “You’re not Catholic”, all according to your infallible opinion.

Actually, it has nothing to do with my personal “insight”. The Teachings of the Church are clear, and persons who reject them, such as yourself, do not hold to Catholic faith. I don’t claim to be an expert on anyone’s spiritual status, including my own. However, I have learned enough about my faith to distinguish some heresies and apostasy.

For all I know, you are just role playing here on CAF, and do not, in reality, believe anything you have written here. However, I can say that, if a person believed these things, then the person does not embrace the Catholic faith.

I seem to remember Christ saying something along the lines of “Judge not, lest you be judged.” I assume then that you have nothing to worry about in your own judgment, since you are so ready to set yourself up as the judge of other people’s faith and spirituality?

I do not condemn people who reject the Catholic faith. I pray for them. I cannot judge other’s faith and spirituality. What I can do is discern whether or not what a person has written is consistent with what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church teaches. What you have written here does not represent that Catholic faith handed down to us by the Apostles.

 

[guanophore]

So we’ll have to agree to disagree. Which means that if we disagree with a church teaching, then in good conscience we will just have to continue doing so. I seem to remember a Reformation which tore Europe apart, largely based on church teachings on indulgences being abused by the church itself. The ill will must have been considerable for the feelings to run so high, but the Church didn’t reform itself, untill it was too late.

I think you are not distinguishing between the sinful behavior or corrupt persons, and the teaching of the Church. These abuses were never the teaching of the Church. You are mixing apples and cow dung!

I’ll go on believing what I think.

This much seems certain. It reflects the kind of hubris that we find in the Garden of Eden.

 

[BRB1]

Protestant congregations are full of “ex-Catholics”

I have read on this Board Protestants bragging that 80% of their evangelical congregations are “ex-Catholics” and they are proud of it.

In reality … 100% of Protestants have historical roots in Catholic Bible and Church.

 

[guanophore]

In reality … 100% of Protestants have historical roots in Catholic Bible and Church.

Good point!

However, those that never had any experience with Catholicism usually don’t even realize that their faith has departed from what the Apostles believed and taught.

 

[BRB1]

Good point!

However, those that never had any experience with Catholicism usually don’t even realize that their faith has departed from what the Apostles believed and taught.

Many Protestant pastors don’t see/appreciate and teach the unity of the Church brotherhood to their flocks. People in these churches can so easily fall prey to believing their flock has the ‘exclusive truth’ … and all others are to some degree demon influenced.

Its not always a situation of ignorance … for many brilliant Protestant intellectuals and pastors are convinced that Catholics are the enemy.

 

[kalt]

A man is holding you and your 9-month-old baby hostage. He will kill both of you if you do nothing. If you allow a 3rd party to kill your baby, the man holding you hostage will let you live. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to save the baby. What do you do?

But maybe it’s more like this. You and your baby have a disease. If you do nothing, both of you will die of the disease. If you allow a 3rd person to do what will kill the baby, you are saved. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to save the baby. What do you do?

This is why I don’t get the teaching on ectopic pregnancies. I don’t object to allowing them. I just don’t get how they’re justified.

Is someone who doesn’t understand a teaching and disagrees with it, but obeys it (doesn’t act against it or encourage others to act against it), is the person “in trouble” with the Church?

People have written a lot, but no one has clearly answered that question. A simple yes or no is good.

Joan

 

[1ke]

Is someone who doesn’t understand a teaching and disagrees with it, but obeys it (doesn’t act against it or encourage others to act against it), is the person “in trouble” with the Church?

People have written a lot, but no one has clearly answered that question. A simple yes or no is good.

Joan

Short answer: No

Long answer: No, as long as such a person is not promoting their position such as teaching it to others, writing about it, etc. If you simply don’t understand the teaching and therefore have trouble accepting it-- but do nothing that is an act against that teaching and continue to try to understand it-- then you are fine. Everyone has some element of the faith they struggle to understand. So, just keep working on it. But, don’t let this rather minor thing keep you awake at night or away from the Sacraments.

 

[kalt]

Short answer: No

Long answer: No, as long as such a person is not promoting their position such as teaching it to others, writing about it, etc. If you simply don’t understand the teaching and therefore have trouble accepting it-- but do nothing that is an act against that teaching and continue to try to understand it-- then you are fine. Everyone has some element of the faith they struggle to understand. So, just keep working on it. But, don’t let this rather minor thing keep you awake at night or away from the Sacraments.

I wonder if writing about it here counts against me.

It doesn’t keep me up at night.

 

[1ke]

I wonder if writing about it here counts against me.

No, I meant writing in a formal way, such as censured individuals Charles Curran, Karl Rahner, etc.

 

[peary2]

It means you haven’t thought it through in the context of the Faith and all that encompasses.

It means that grace has not penetrated the core of your being so that the Truth is revealed through the Holy Spirit.

It means one does not have a correctly informed conscience.

It means that one refuses to be challenged by Faith and puts his or her trust in the convenient “here and now” mentality.

It means you may ultimately lose your salvation in the long run.

 

[kalt]

It means you haven’t thought it through in the context of the Faith and all that encompasses.

It means that grace has not penetrated the core of your being so that the Truth is revealed through the Holy Spirit.

It means one does not have a correctly informed conscience.

It means that one refuses to be challenged by Faith and puts his or her trust in the convenient “here and now” mentality.

It means you may ultimately lose your salvation in the long run.

It sounds like you know and completely understand that particular teaching. Can you please explain it to me? I know what it says, and I’ve read the CCC, so I don’t need that repeated to me. What I need is an explanation. So far no one has been able to do that for me, though they say they know and understand the teaching. If you can do it, I will be very grateful!

 

[peary2]

So we’ll have to agree to disagree. Which means that if we disagree with a church teaching, then in good conscience we will just have to continue doing so. I seem to remember a Reformation which tore Europe apart, largely based on church teachings on indulgences being abused by the church itself. The ill will must have been considerable for the feelings to run so high, but the Church didn’t reform itself, untill it was too late.

I’ll go on believing what I think.

That is not true. The Church began reforming itself over a hundred years prior to Luther’s nonsense. Either he was ignorant of this or he didn’t care. And the Church answered all of his theological objections at the Council of Trent. Luther only lived one year more into the council itself (it was called beginning in 1545; Luther died in 1546, but it seems he didn’t care one way or the other about it, either.

Luther was an Augustinian, but he actually thought his intellect could rival or even surpass St. Augustine himself. That was his great downfall spiritually and became a domino effect in his personal life. Unfortunately, he took many ‘followers’ with him.

An “informed conscience” is one that understands fully well the philosophical and theological reasons for the Church’s position on a matter. If one still disagrees, but can offer no valid opposite point, then they are bound by the decision of the Church. Otherwise, they are on their own.

 

[guanophore]

A man is holding you and your 9-month-old baby hostage. He will kill both of you if you do nothing. If you allow a 3rd party to kill your baby, the man holding you hostage will let you live. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to save the baby. What do you do?

You have offered a faulty premise. There is no way that we can know that “there is nothing you or anyone else can do to save the baby”. Because of that, it is always and everywhere wrong to make choices that purposefully sacrifce the life of the innocent for some other purpose.

 But maybe it's more like this. You and your baby have a disease. If you do nothing, both of you will die of the disease. If you allow a 3rd person to do what will kill the baby, you are saved. There is nothing you or anyone else can do to save the baby. What do you do?

Treatment of a disease or a medical problem is not equivalent to willful sacrifice of the innocent. During treatment, lives are often at risk. A person risks death every time they have anaesthesia. However, the purpose of the procedure is not to cause death. It is an unwanted outcome.

This is why I don’t get the teaching on ectopic pregnancies. I don’t object to allowing them. I just don’t get how they’re justified.

You are equating medical treatment with murder, that is why you don’t get it. Until you accept that the taking of innocent life is always and every where wrong, you will not be able to “get it”.

Is someone who doesn’t understand a teaching and disagrees with it, but obeys it (doesn’t act against it or encourage others to act against it), is the person “in trouble” with the Church?

Not a bit! Such a person is an example of humility. It is much harder to obey things when we don’t understand them.

People have written a lot, but no one has clearly answered that question. A simple yes or no is good.

I suppose there are as many opinons as there are keyboards. This question has been answered for you several times. I suggest you re-read the thread, as I think you may have missed some posts.

I wonder if writing about it here counts against me.

No, you have brought the issue to an appropriate venue for questioning and discussion. You are also not promoting that others disobey the teaching, even though it does not make sense to you.

I recommend that you do a search on the threads for this topic. We just had a very lively discussion involving the use of condoms that covered some of this topic. If you have trouble finding, let me know.

 

[kalt]

You have offered a faulty premise. There is no way that we can know that “there is nothing you or anyone else can do to save the baby”. Because of that, it is always and everywhere wrong to make choices that purposefully sacrifce the life of the innocent for some other purpose.

Treatment of a disease or a medical problem is not equivalent to willful sacrifice of the innocent. During treatment, lives are often at risk. A person risks death every time they have anaesthesia. However, the purpose of the procedure is not to cause death. It is an unwanted outcome.

You are equating medical treatment with murder, that is why you don’t get it. Until you accept that the taking of innocent life is always and every where wrong, you will not be able to “get it”.

Not a bit! Such a person is an example of humility. It is much harder to obey things when we don’t understand them.

I suppose there are as many opinons as there are keyboards. This question has been answered for you several times. I suggest you re-read the thread, as I think you may have missed some posts.

No, you have brought the issue to an appropriate venue for questioning and discussion. You are also not promoting that others disobey the teaching, even though it does not make sense to you.

I recommend that you do a search on the threads for this topic. We just had a very lively discussion involving the use of condoms that covered some of this topic. If you have trouble finding, let me know.

Thank you for your response, but you haven’t explained the teaching at all. It still seems that killing an innocent baby is wrong at all times, except when it’s an ectopic pregnancy. That baby is just as innocent as any other. No one has explained how that baby is any less innocent than any other. They try to make it sound like collateral damage, but we all know better than that. If someone operated on your arm and the baby you’re carrying died, that would be an “unintended consequence”. Going in and removing the baby with the tube is hardly “unintended”.

 

[peary2]

It sounds like you know and completely understand that particular teaching. Can you please explain it to me? I know what it says, and I’ve read the CCC, so I don’t need that repeated to me. What I need is an explanation. So far no one has been able to do that for me, though they say they know and understand the teaching. If you can do it, I will be very grateful!

Exactly to what teaching(s) are you referring?

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for your response, but you haven’t explained the teaching at all. It still seems that killing an innocent baby is wrong at all times, except when it’s an ectopic pregnancy.

No, kalt. There are NO EXCEPTIONS! The deliberate taking of the innocent unborn baby is always and everywhere wrong.

You will be able to apprehend this teaching better if you start with this premise, instead of your “exception”. Your “exception” and your premise in the OP reflect thinking that has been contaminated by the culture of death in which we live. You will have to relinquish these before you can apprehend the Truth of what the Church teaches.

That baby is just as innocent as any other. No one has explained how that baby is any less innocent than any other. They try to make it sound like collateral damage, but we all know better than that. If someone operated on your arm and the baby you’re carrying died, that would be an “unintended consequence”. Going in and removing the baby with the tube is hardly “unintended”.

The intention is not to take the life of the innocent. Yes, there are many unintended consequences for various medical treatments. Death is sometimes one of them. However, we never approach treatment for the purpose of committing murder.