What if someone in RCIA doesn't accept all of the Church's teachings?

[Dovekin]

I generally approach this from a different direction, which I am not sure I can articulate clearly.

First there is a hierarchy of truths. This profession and belief only refers to what the Church “believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” There is no doctrine on capital punishment that the Church proclaims to be revealed by God. There are some in the Church who might make that claim, but the Church does not say that any teaching on capital punishment is revealed truth. The Assumption of Mary otoh was proclaimed as revealed by God by Pius XII in 1950, so it is covered by this profession. That narrows the discussion considerably.

Second, the most important part of this is the relationship of the Church to truth. Do you believe the Church trusts God enough to teach what God reveals? Doubts about specific issues, like capital punishment, are usually motivated by something; do you believe that what motivates your position could move the Church? This is a judgment about how we relate to God more than about a particular “truth.”

Idk what else to add right now, though something more needs to be said.

 

[pnewton]

My question stands - why would someone who does not believe what the church teaches want to become a part of that?

Peace!!!

If you really want an answer, I would say because they believe the most important thing about the Church, that is, that she is the one, holy, apostolic Catholic Church. She is the Bride of Christ and is lead by his temporal successor on Earth. She is the Barque of Peter and the instrument of salvation to the world.

I think it important to realize that the primacy of conscience is also part of the doctrine of the Church. Since formation of conscience is the work of a lifetime, I do not see why RCIA candidates alone would be expected to be instantaneous in having a conscience fully formed. So again, I really think such issues are best left with the local priest to determine if there is an impediment to receiving baptism, or entry into the Church, or simply part of the process of conversion and formation that occupies one’s life.

 

[stpurl]

Of course once they ‘stay’, they cannot ‘just’ stay in a constant, “Yes I believe X and Y but I simply can’t believe Z even though it’s dogma”; they must then strive to accept Z, even if it’s “God I can’t accept Z on my own, but it is the teaching of the Church and as I am Catholic, please grant me the grace to say, Thy will be done, I accept it.” They might have to say and pray that every day and night of their lives until death, but that really would be the only way that they could truly stay ‘in’ the Church and not be somebody who wanted only ‘part’ of the Church.

I do think God is merciful and He WILL grant grace to those who truly have difficulty with belief, but as always, those people have to be willing to accept His grace. And I don’t see how a person who says, “I am a Catholic, I accept most teachings but —to give an example of something that probably many Catholics struggle with today—I just CANNOT accept that the Church would deny marriage to gay people, would deny them the opportunity to be loved and cherished, would deny them families by not allowing them to adopt, would not allow them to serve in schools, etc.”. (This is a hypothetical. This is not my own position; I stand with the Church here).

But there are many, many Catholics today who think it is sufficient to say, “I’m a Catholic, in good standing, I do support everything but gay marriage, and I’m staying with the Church because I was baptized and I’m entitled to receive the Eucharist’. . .and that’s ‘it’ as far as they are concerned.

For those who can’t ‘accept’ gay marriage, if they remain quiet, do not vocally support gay marriage online or in talk with family and friends, if they pray for grace to accept it. . .that I think is fine.

But if they reject that teaching, and go out and write letters to the editor stating their name, their ‘Catholic cred’, and how they are SURE the Church ‘will change’, or go out and officiate at ‘gay weddings’ if they are Catholic priests or prominent lay people (cough), and think that ‘hey, God understands and primacy of conscience I have to speak up and defend my doubt”. . .um, not so good here. If you’re persistent and loudly and publicly not just saying, “I doubt this” but, “as a Catholic I think the Church is totally wrong and I’m backing this thing myself 100%—it’s scandal.

 

[TMC]

You may be right, I am truly not sure. But I do think that if you add up all the issues where there is significant disagreement among the faithful (gay marriage is just one of them), and all those people left, there would be very few people left in the Church. I have a hard time believing that is what God (or the Church) would prefer.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

. My question stands - why would someone who does not believe what the church teaches want to become a part of that?

Peace!!!

Oh, having been involved with rcia for a few years now, a lot of people go through rcia to get their sacraments so that they can get married in The Church. I get the impression a lot of the time that people do it more for their fiance than actually wanting to receive their sacraments a lot of the time. I would not be the least bit surprised if some of them are just going through the motions to please their fiance but do not agree with everything 100%

 

[stpurl]

Well the thing is, we can’t say that ‘once they’re gone they’ll never come back’, right?

In fact, a lot of people ‘leave’ the church (whether they acknowledge it or not) in their lives; some maybe as teens, only to return as they marry and have children. Others stop going perhaps at the death of a parent, and then perhaps return even years later.

I wonder if the actual shock (as we hear now, for example, with people saying that ‘they didn’t think it would be so hard to be away from the sacraments/the church building/etc”) if people actually DID say, “I can’t stay’. . .and then realized ‘what they were missing’. Surely for many it might help them come back more quickly.

The thing is, no solution is going to work for everybody. There simply is no way that we can say that “even if you’re going to badmouth the Church you should stay because you’re better off than leaving’ because for that person, ‘staying’ keeps him comfortable and assured that he’s ‘doing the right thing’ and so he never STOPS the badmouthing or changes to correct himself. . . Whereas he MIGHT have done so had he left.
Of course he might NOT. But the main thrust is that as long as one has absolutely no ‘negative effects’ to being able to ‘pick and choose’ and be vocal and defiant and disobedient, then it’s far more likely one will CONTINUE that behavior, whereas with ‘negative effects’ (like having to ‘leave’), I.e., ‘actions have consequences’, at the least it’s going to ‘force’ the person into truly thinking about those consequences, instead of living in a false paradise where anything goes.

 

[TMC]

Of course he might NOT. But the main thrust is that as long as one has absolutely no ‘negative effects’ to being able to ‘pick and choose’ and be vocal and defiant and disobedient, then it’s far more likely one will CONTINUE that behavior, whereas with ‘negative effects’ (like having to ‘leave’), I.e., ‘actions have consequences’, at the least it’s going to ‘force’ the person into truly thinking about those consequences, instead of living in a false paradise where anything goes.

I find it hard to believe any spiritually mature person would decide to change their mind on an important doctrinal issue for those reasons. The Church’s disapproval may get them to keep quiet about their differences, but why would it make them change their minds, assuming they have truly formed an opinion on the issue? Or are you only referring to changing the person’s outward behavior?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

a lot of people go through rcia to get their sacraments so that they can get married in The Church.

I don’t think most of the “serious” converts know how many people join the Church for reasons other than spiritual ones. It’s very common. Even most cradle Catholics don’t give Catholicism much thought. Those things are just accepted within the Church.

When I read some of the threads here on CAF I really am just in awe of all the serious converts who take Catholicism so seriously, so legalistic, etc. But it’s really not as rigid as they think it is, and some of them come here to CAF being very upset because of XYZ. I think we all need to be reminded that it wasn’t Jesus who was rigid, it was the Pharisees.

 

[adf417]

I understand but i dont see this the same scenario necessarily as the OP.

 

[stpurl]

Well as we know, one can arrive at a perfectly well-thought out, mature, reasoned decision and be absolutely completely wrong. Just being able to ‘form an opinion’ doesn’t ensure it will be correct. That’s why a truly spiritually mature person would probably be more likely to be receptive to changing his or her mind; a really spiritually mature person, like an intellectually mature person, knows just how much he or she personally does NOT know.

Of course there are large numbers of Catholics who have been poorly educated in actual Catholic teachings and beliefs, to the point where they think the ‘Catholic position’ is something it really isn’t at all. These are the people who think that the whole rationale behind being ‘anti gay’ is based on wanting to have more ‘adherents’ to the faith, and equate this with being ‘anti contraception’ for the same reason. And of course, that isn’t the Catholic position at all, but the Catholic who is passionately for ‘contraception’ and ‘gay rights’ is usually running on ‘emotionalism’ and ‘rights’ and viewing the Church as being dictatorial, etc. That’s why I said that there is no ‘one size fits all’ solution and that not every dissenting Catholic WOULD be amenable to having to ‘face consequences’. But that doesn’t mean that we say, “because some won’t obey even so, we shouldn’t use ‘tough’ things such as even excommunication as a corrective.

Sure, letting people just ‘dissent’ while blaring themselves as ‘authentic Catholics’ can be seen in our modern ‘oh so tolerant’ society as ‘letting them find their own way’. . .the solution to most secular problems until a problem becomes overwhelming. But it also causes scandal, and indeed, if Joe or Jane Catholic sees very prominent Catholics (cough) who loudly decry Catholic doctrine yet are lauded by the Distorter, given communion by high ranking prelates, given honorary degrees by prestigious Catholic colleges and institutions, Joe and Jane are likely to think that if THESE people dissent over X, then they should dissent as well.

 

[CelticWarlord]

What if they are told “pray to see it the Church’s way” but in the end, they say “no, I don’t believe that,

This is more or less exactly where I am at. As has already been said, I don’t know why someone in such a state would want to insist on going ahead with confirmation and baptism. RCIA, on the other hand, is for anyone who simply wants to learn more about the Church, if I am not mistaken. I inquired about it but had no plans to formally join the RC Church. And I wound up not pursuing RCIA in any event. This is not to say I would not be interested at some future point, although I suspect I already know most of what they would teach me.

 

[otjm]

Are they dismissed from RCIA and not allowed to join the Church? Does anyone “try to work with them” on the matter? Or would they ever be told “that’s OK, if your conscience tells you that, you don’t have to accept the Church’s teaching on that matter”? And is this something that happens often? Has anyone ever heard of it?

I have been part of an RCIA team for 25+ years. What i have found from that experience is that there tends to be little, if any vocalization of such matters. We don’t give tests - and I doubt anyone else does either, nor does it appear to even be contemplated by the rites and procedures.

As James Joyce wrote in Finnegan’s Wake - “here comes everybody”. So people who join are like those who already belong; some get it, some don’t.

Some years ago there was an article in Our Sunday Visitor; apparently there had been a study done of those joining the Church; and within a few years, a goodly number were non-involved or had left the Church. Considering how many cradle Catholics leave, that too should be no surprise to anyone paying attention.

Theoretically, sponsors should be talking with their candidates and catechumens. I say “should” because sponsors can be all over the map; I have had far more than one or two sponsors speak up about how much they learned during the process.

Over the years I and other team members have repeatedly said that we are there for people to “come and see”; we make no bones about the program being one that leads to joining the Church; but we also make no bones about a) this we believe to be the full truth; and b) we understand that some people may well decide to not join.

I (and others) have answered a multitude of questions; but it is the responsibility of the person attending to determine if they will or will not join. We make it clear that we will spend any time necessary to answer questions, and have done so.

Christ nowhere in the Gospels gave pop quizzes - He certainly challenged them "“Who do you say I am?”, but nowhere did He say "“Do you believe this? If not, be gone!”. He clearly let a lot of disciples go (John 6) and didn’t chase after them to try to cajole them or explain further; and he had one of His hand-picked apostles betray Him (and at the Last Supper, made it fairly clear He knew what Judas would do).

In short, He treated adults as adults; He gave the evidence, and did not eliminate anyone; it was their choice to follow or not.

In RCIA, we do likewise.

 

[otjm]

And for Baptism how do we know if the person is not already Baptized?

We ask. It is rare that someone does not know; and if there is a question whether or not it occurred, they are conditionally baptized.

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

I understand but i dont see this the same scenario necessarily as the OP

Yes, I understand it’s kind of different but it still is related that lots of people can want to be Catholic while still disagreeing with Church teaching.

I once had a Inquirer come to one class (his girlfriend brought him) and he asked me how much of Catholicism does he have to accept to become Catholic. It was pretty apparent to me he wished to retain as much protestantism as possible but still possibly become Catholic. I asked him if he wanted to become Catholic so he could marry his girlfriend without issue. He looked off into space and stood quiet for a long time before he answered. Poor guy… I asked him that right in front of her lol I did not think much of it but it seems like that was his plan but he had not discussed it with her or something.

So, I’ll say this much… I agree that “why would someone want to join a Church they do not agree with” it seems being in love with a Catholic of the opposite sex is definitely one such reason. There can be a number of others too

 

[TMC]

Well as we know, one can arrive at a perfectly well-thought out, mature, reasoned decision and be absolutely completely wrong. Just being able to ‘form an opinion’ doesn’t ensure it will be correct. That’s why a truly spiritually mature person would probably be more likely to be receptive to changing his or her mind; a really spiritually mature person, like an intellectually mature person, knows just how much he or she personally does NOT know.

Of course this is true. But there are still plenty of spiritually mature people who acknowledge their own limitations, think, study and pray, and still disagree with the Church.

Sure, letting people just ‘dissent’ while blaring themselves as ‘authentic Catholics’ can be seen in our modern ‘oh so tolerant’ society as ‘letting them find their own way’. . .the solution to most secular problems until a problem becomes overwhelming. But it also causes scandal, and indeed, if Joe or Jane Catholic sees very prominent Catholics (cough) who loudly decry Catholic doctrine yet are lauded by the Distorter, given communion by high ranking prelates, given honorary degrees by prestigious Catholic colleges and institutions, Joe and Jane are likely to think that if THESE people dissent over X, then they should dissent as well.

I think we just disagree here. I don’t think that Catholics disagree with the Church lightly, and I don’t think that those who do disagree should be muzzled. Disagreements are important to continue the development of doctrine; and honesty is also integral to faith, IMO.

I do have a problem with those that misrepresent Church teaching, i.e. who say the Church teaches differently than they know it does. I don’t have a problem with those that admit they disagree, but then explain why.

 

[stpurl]

Well I don’t think people should be muzzled either. But there is a difference between disagreement and dissent. We can disagree on how best to help the poor, because there are so many different ways and each can be good. But to outright dissent, to for example state, “I’m a good Catholic and as a good Catholic I support gay marriage and contraception and abortion”. . . And then to say that, “Wait, as a Catholic you may indeed ‘disagree’ with the Church but you can’t simultaneously say, “I am in union with the Church” (which is what you say when you say “I’m a Catholic”) and then say, ‘and part of my being Catholic is not just disagreeing privately, but supporting publicly, actions which as a Catholic I am obliged to repudiate as false and wrong.’

These people you see are getting all the adulation (“See how brave, following conscience against the bad old Church trying to muzzle them”), they are leading others to sin, and they’re claiming this is all on the basis of being ‘really honest’.

Balderdash. Look, I’m 63 and I’ve lived through plenty in the Church where at times I did go through all the, “Hmm, as a thinking person in the world today, can I REALLY maintain and believe these things the Church teaches?” I mean, I’m a woman. I went through the whole, “Is the Church racist and sexist? Are women second class for not being able to be priests? Is the Church trying to keep women barefoot and pregnant? How about the poor, are we really helping them when the Vatican is full of ‘treasure?” And then in 2001, “This priest scandal, does it show celibacy is a crock? Can we trust these old men to tell the truth?” PLENTY of stuff to wonder and ponder here.

And each time, I came back to, “I’ve checked it all out, prayed, consulted every possible item I could find. . .and each time I said, “No, the Church IS right, and these doubts, understandable in the climate of the time, ‘reasonable’ or not, I can truly say I no longer doubt.”

And if I (stubborn as a mule, and extremely conceited regarding my own personal intelligence —ask my family), with my own failures at actually living like a Christian my life long, could find through God the grace to resolve my doubts, anybody can. And hopefully, everybody will.

 

[TMC]

I get your viewpoint, and respect it, but I disagree. I think the Church needs to be able to discuss its disagreements (including publicly) in order to continue to grow in understanding. I think each Catholic has an obligation to contribute to that growth. I agree that some abuse that, as I pointed out above, but I think the value exceeds that cost.

 

[PJM]

That’s a more complex then can be answered without far greater specifics.

As an RCIA instructor; I would ask this person to meet personally with the Pastor; and facilitate such a meeting ASAP. This is above the “pay grade” of RCIA catechist, and needs to be swiftly passed along

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I can’t imagine anyone being asked to leave RCIA or the Church. It may be agreed that it’s best to delay receiving the Sacraments.

My experience has been that I’ve been encouraged to still attend Mass and even to finish off the RCIA sessions but obviously without actually coming into full communion.

I am all in favor of anyone continuing to attend Mass, and completing the RCIA program, regardless of any difficulties that they might have. Anyone can attend Mass every Sunday the rest of their life, not receive communion, and nobody will ever hassle them, ever put pressure on them to join the Church, nothing. If it were a small or rural parish, the priest might ask them about registering as a parishioner, but they could simply reply “I’m not Catholic, I just love coming to Mass”, and that would be the end of it. Aside from that, in a larger parish where not everyone knows everyone else, they could come to Mass for years and years, and nobody would even necessarily know they weren’t Catholic. Saying “hey, that guy never receives communion” isn’t something Catholics would say, or would even think about. Quite frankly, nobody cares. (Being indifferent to someone never receiving the sacraments is not entirely a good thing — we should want everyone to become Catholic and receive the Bread of Life — but that’s another story.)

We need to remember that the Church does allow room for a well-formed conscience to prevail. In the areas I cannot assent to, I also consider scientific sources in forming my conscience, as I am a retired scientist (applied chemistry and physics).

So in the first place we need to allow a well-formed, thoughtful, and well-prayed conscience to prevail.

I can’t go there with you. To say “my conscience tells me that I am right and the Church is wrong” is to put the faith of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, through the shredder, and to proclaim that I know better than seventy generations of Catholic Christians before me. Truth is one. In the case of moral doctrines, to say “what’s true for the other guy isn’t true for me” sounds like having an open line to God and having special permission to follow one’s own ideas instead of the Church’s teachings. Were Ted Bundy and Charles Manson “in good conscience”? They could have been. What then?

People who want to join the Church ought to know that it isn’t some club or cult where people swear allegiance to everything the Church teaches. That’s insane. The important things to assent to are in the Creed. Each individual may not completely agree with other teachings - that is fine and understandable. People grow in wisdom, but even a lifetime may not be enough to come around on every issue. The Church may even have some things wrong.

We’re not given that kind of latitude. Anything the Church teaches, we must accept. If we can’t see it with our own reason, we take the Church’s word for it, and forget about our own ideas.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

This person is regularly speaking with the priests, deacons, catechists. If they cannot honestly accept a doctrine or dogma, they would not want to make the profession of faith as it would be a lie. They would continue to study, pray, until they can make that vow in truth. I’ve seen people wait for years over one doctrine, anyone who has been involved with RCIA will tell you the same thing.

That’s exactly what they should do.

Oh, having been involved with rcia for a few years now, a lot of people go through rcia to get their sacraments so that they can get married in The Church. I get the impression a lot of the time that people do it more for their fiance than actually wanting to receive their sacraments a lot of the time. I would not be the least bit surprised if some of them are just going through the motions to please their fiance but do not agree with everything 100%

I would like to see every priest, who is instructing a potential convert where marriage or courtship is an issue, to find some kind of tactful, possibly even humorous way, to draw out of that convert whether they would still want to join the Church if they lost their fiance(e). Something along the lines of “now, we know this will never happen, but let’s say you and [name] here broke up, or if she ran off with the lead vocalist of some rock band, or something — how would you feel about joining the Church then?”. Even a moment’s hesitation is a danger sign.

I once had a Inquirer come to one class (his girlfriend brought him) and he asked me how much of Catholicism does he have to accept to become Catholic. It was pretty apparent to me he wished to retain as much protestantism as possible but still possibly become Catholic. I asked him if he wanted to become Catholic so he could marry his girlfriend without issue. He looked off into space and stood quiet for a long time before he answered. Poor guy… I asked him that right in front of her lol I did not think much of it but it seems like that was his plan but he had not discussed it with her or something.

As I was saying…

As a kind of side thought, how would this work in other religions? If you go to join the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and you tell them “I agree with everything except that blood transfusion business”, I wonder how that would go. If you told the Muslims you weren’t going to give up pork, you just can’t believe there’s anything wrong with eating that? Or, for that matter, if you were to tell a “progressive” church such as the Episcopalians or the Unitarian Universalists that you think it’s all right to be prejudiced against racial minorities? (There are people who think that.) Do you think they’d say “oh, that’s fine, your conscience has to be your guide”? I don’t think so.