Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?

[St_Pancake]

Am I the only person here on CAF who struggle to accept Church teachings on different issues? I love the Mass, believe in the True Presence, and absolutely adore the Holy Mother, but there are three issues that I cannot come to grips with:

1. The ban on ABC

2.  Divorced people that cannot receive the Eucharist if they have remarried without 
     obtaining an annulment from the Church.

3.  LGBTQ individuals are expected to live celebate lives until they die.

What are the issues that you deal with and pray about on a daily basis? Thank you all , in advance for being honest.

Personally, I have no stake in any of the above. By the time I converted to Catholicism, there were no eggs left in my wife. I’ve never been divorced and I’m not gay.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have my own temptations because I do but the things listed do not affect me.

While those items don’t affect me, I did pay attention in RCIA and do understand the reasoning behind all of the above. If I did have a stake in those, I might feel differently.

 

[Gorgias]

kozlosap:

I agree it is puzzling. There are many cases where a man or a woman has been mistreated both physically and mentally by their spouse and as a last mortal blow, refuse to cooperate with the tribunal so that their former mate will never be able to remarry and receive the Holy Eucharist.

I’m not an expert on annulments and have never even had one but it is my understanding that an annulment can go through even if one of the parties refuses to cooperate.

Pancake is correct here. Even if the respondent does not cooperate with the nullity proceedings, the proceedings move forward. Lack of cooperation does not cause the other spouse to “never be able to remarry and receive the Holy Eucharist.”

 

[Gorgias]

Tomdstone:

the wife takes a course on feminism at the local college. She then meets a new boyfriend at the local bar, stays with him for a few nights and then has a sudden inspiration that 30 years ago her consent had some small defect that she never thought about until just now as she is discussing the situation with her new boyfriend.

The text in red is a made up scenario, made up to belittle.

Perhaps. Yet, its absurdity helps peel away another layer of the question of the Church’s teaching on marriage and validity and nullity.

Does a single instance of infidelity prove the nullity of a marriage? No, it doesn’t. Rather, the Church would say that a single instance of infidelity, followed by contrition, does not warrant divorce, let alone demonstrate that the spouse did not intend fidelity at the time of the wedding.

But, is this how nullity proceedings work? Do spouses really sit down with their new lovers, while still married, and discuss which aspect of canon law applies to their case? That’s simply ludicrous.

However, if they go ahead and divorce their spouse, in favor of the person they’re cheating with, then we need to ask a different question – one that absolutely does speak to consent at the time of marriage: if they’re willing today to just walk away from a marriage that had all the appearances of being healthy for many years, does this point to the possibility that they never really thought that “marriage is till death do us part” at the time of their wedding? (Mind you, that’s a completely different question than “did they think that their own marriage would last forever, on the day of their wedding?”…!) If they never really thought that marriage must be forever – at the time they entered into the marriage – even if it took them years to find a situation that would reveal that attitude, then yes, that’s a serious defect of consent that points to invalidity.

 

[gracepoole]

Of these issues, I think the Church’s rejection of same sex sexual relationships is the easiest to accept. IMHO, it seems to be the most self-evidently and “grossly wayward” of the acts listed. Basic reasoning (quite apart from any theology) seems to identify such acts as “amiss”, and not in accord with our nature, whereas drawing a similar conclusion for (say) ABC or masturbation requires far more subtle (less obvious) considerations.

I find this argument regarding homosexuality totally dissatisfying. Same-sex attractions are well documented throughout the natural world, which indicates that they are not “unnatural.” The whole “nuts and bolts” claim (a bolt can’t function with another bolt) is extremely weak to me. The lack of commentary by Christ on this issue also makes things worse for me.

Understand that I’m not challenging your beliefs or the Church’s, which I do comprehend. Just noting one teaching with which I struggle.

 

[kozlosap]

Personally, I have no stake in any of the above. By the time I converted to Catholicism, there were no eggs left in my wife. I’ve never been divorced and I’m not gay.

That isn’t to say that I don’t have my own temptations because I do but the things listed do not affect me.

While those items don’t affect me, I did pay attention in RCIA and do understand the reasoning behind all of the above. If I did have a stake in those, I might feel differently.

I too am way past worrying about ABC and I’m single and straight., but I do worry about my gay friends and relatives. My 30 year old daughter has stage 4 endometriosis and has undergone two laproscopic surgeries and an IUD with hormones implanted to try and stop the damage to her tubes. The specialists at UCLA wanted her on a new pill, but due to her prior heart surgeries and arrhythmia they are not able to use it. Luckily, she has no guilt concerning the IUD, but there have been family friends, super über Catholics that have attempted to shame her. She certainly doesn’t need my help (she’s an attorney), but I let these unthinking people understand my stance on this issue.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

, but I let these unthinking people understand my stance on this issue.

Do you view them as unthinking because they share Holy Mother Church’s view or because they shame her?

 

[kozlosap]

Do you view them as unthinking because they share Holy Mother Church’s view or because they shame her?

Because they shame her is the main concern, however, it is my understanding that in this case the Church would not condemn the use of the IUD since it’s primary function is not as a contraception device, rather as a tool for treatment.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Because they shame her is the main concern, however, it is my understanding that in this case the Church would not condemn the use of the IUD since it’s primary function is not as a contraception device, rather as a tool for treatment.

You are probably right. However, unthinking is probably not a good description as there are many a wise theologian that may differ and agree with them.

 

[Bookcat]

What is needed? (for all of us …)

A renewal of the mind

“In the second verse we are given the answer: “Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God…” (12: 2). The two decisive words of this verse are “transformed” and “renewal”. We must become new people, transformed into a new mode of existence.”

“Paul makes this process of “recasting” even clearer by saying that we become new if we transform our way of thinking. What has been introduced here with “way of thinking” is the Greek term “nous”. It is a complex word. It may be translated as “spirit”, “sentiments”, “reason”, and precisely, also by “way of thinking”. Thus our reason must become new. This surprises us. We might have expected instead that this would have concerned some attitude: what we should change in our behaviour. But no: renewal must go to the very core. Our way of looking at the world, of understanding reality all our thought must change from its foundations…”

~ Pope Benedict XVI

Go read the rest -there is much there for reflection:

(very rich and helpful --a very profound work):

vatican.va/holy_father/be…aolino_en.html

(starts second paragraph–read to end -though do not miss the first paragraph on another subject…)

 

[JackVk]

I find this argument regarding homosexuality totally dissatisfying. Same-sex attractions are well documented throughout the natural world, which indicates that they are not “unnatural.” The whole “nuts and bolts” claim (a bolt can’t function with another bolt) is extremely weak to me. The lack of commentary by Christ on this issue also makes things worse for me.

Cannibalism, rape, and infanticide are also common in nature. Does that make them okay? (I’m not making a slippery slope argument; I’m saying the argument from nature does not hold water).

 

[Burt_Macklin]

For me it would be the teaching on damned infants

“We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent; and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent. . . . The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell”

COUNCIL OF LYONS II 1274

“Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (DZ 693).

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445
Under Pope Eugenius IV

 

[kozlosap]

I’ve raised these two before - namely the ban on contraception esp. the Pill, in an age of super population growth (it’s doubled from about 3.5 billion to 7 billion just in my lifetime) and the “infallibility” ruling, which to me just raised one more barrier to church reunification.

And I’m not really interested in getting into an argument either - I’ve already been through that.

Other questions have already been raised by others -

1. The ultimate fate of sentient animals - of course I’m thinking here of my dogs and cats, past and present, and not a crocodile or bull shark in our more northern rivers. In particular those animals that were treated badly or cruelly.
2. The fate of unbaptised people, including babies - my sister wasn’t baptised, but had herself baptised later as far as I know. This was due to the rebellion of my (unbelieving) Catholic father.
3. The difficulty with people getting remarried. I wonder if the hard line on divorce taken by the Church was really what Christ meant. There were a number of cases that I’m aware of where a woman was treated badly by her husband, and the marriage was irretrievable, but she couldn’t remarry. I also suspect it was the reason my mother remained married to my mongrel of a father, since she’d taken an oath (“for better or worse” - in her case it was for the “worse”).
4. Indulgences which I don’t understand - full stop. To me Purgatory is a place of refinement and I fail to see how there’s going to be any quick fix. You die as you are, warts and all, regardless of how many indulgences someone might have induged in. But then it’s a concept I don’t grasp.
5. Veneration of relics - I don’t mind the idea of venerating saints, but I don’t get much of a sense of effetiveness out of venerating some of their worldy remains, bodily or otherwise. But maybe that’s my original Protestant background.
6. Abortion is pretty clear cut and I don’t have an issue with the church on that one. But euthanasia is more of a gray area for me.
7. Some people deserve the death penalty. In some instances we’re keeping alive unrepentant serial murderers, who show no sign of repentance, at more cost than staying in a five star hotel in Sydney, while more worthy people struggle to survive. Meanwhile you can abort your child, and medical insurance will cover much of the cost. We keep alive a handful of unrepentant serial murderers at great cost, and subsidise the deaths of thousands of unborn children. Sheer hypocricy.

No doubt I could think of other things if I wanted to go into details. But I suppose my main issues are contraception esp. the pill, and the Infallibility doctrine.

I certainly don’t understand the concept of indulgences either. I know that a during the Reformation that rich people would “buy” indulgences just as they could buy another person to serve in the military for them. The very thought that unbaptized infants are in Limbo is horrific.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

For me it would be the teaching on damned infants

“We say that a distinction must be made, that sin is twofold: namely, original and actual: original, which is contracted without consent; and actual which is committed with consent. Original, therefore, which is committed without consent, is remitted without consent through the power of the sacrament; but actual, which is contracted with consent, is not mitigated in the slightest without consent. . . . The punishment of original sin is deprivation of the vision of God, but the punishment of actual sin is the torments of everlasting hell”

COUNCIL OF LYONS II 1274

“Moreover, the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds” (DZ 693).

COUNCIL OF FLORENCE 1438-1445
Under Pope Eugenius IV

I struggle with this as well. But not in the way most people do. I struggle with reconciling this with theology of original sin and salvation and baptism. Limbo nicely handled this situation and I might point out that Limbo, while not an official teaching of the faith is still a valid position to hold.

 

[gracepoole]

Cannibalism, rape, and infanticide are also common in nature. Does that make them okay? (I’m not making a slippery slope argument; I’m saying the argument from nature does not hold water).

No – it simply means they’re not “unnatural.” The fact that something is found in nature doesn’t make it moral or immoral. If the Church were to stick with the claim that while homosexuality is found in nature and therefore doesn’t violate the natural order, it is still immoral for reasons x, y, and z, perhaps my struggles with this teaching would lessen. Perhaps.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

No – it simply means they’re not “unnatural.” The fact that something is found in nature doesn’t make it moral or immoral. If the Church were to stick with the claim that while homosexuality is found in nature and therefore doesn’t violate the natural order, it is still immoral for reasons x, y, and z, perhaps my struggles with this teaching would lessen. Perhaps.

Anything that occurs, occurs in nature. Where else would there be that something could be found other than in nature? So there is nothing that happens that is against the natural order?

 

[gracepoole]

Anything that occurs, occurs in nature. Where else would there be that something could be found other than in nature? So there is nothing that happens that is against the natural order?

The “natural order” argument has been dismantled by far better scholars than I – and for several centuries.

I just want to note that I didn’t share my response to this thread in an attempt to spark debate. I’m not really interested in engaging in one. If one takes the time to read through my years’ worth of posts here on CAF, I’m sure you’ll see that I’ve been there and done that already.

 

[Burt_Macklin]

I struggle with this as well. But not in the way most people do. I struggle with reconciling this with theology of original sin and salvation and baptism. Limbo nicely handled this situation and I might point out that Limbo, while not an official teaching of the faith is still a valid position to hold.

It’s simply the uncertainty surrounding the issue that bothers me. I just want to know where everybody is going so I can pack accordingly.

 

[OraLabora]

The following things are all different:
a) struggle with a teaching / have doubts / vacillate in commitment;
b) know that a teaching is the truth or at least ought to be accepted, but fail to always comply;
c) hold that the Church has simply got something wrong.

I am certainly guilty of a) and b).

If I’m to be brutally honest with myself I’d have to say I’m guilty of all three. Which issues I won’t say; it’s not my vocation to publicly question Church teachings and I certainly don’t want to engage in an argument on the issues I struggle with.

Suffices to say that none of them have bothered me sufficiently to leave the Church, and all of them have been brought up in the confessional at some time or another.

 

[JoeFreedom]

As a former Protestant, (Lutheran), and a believer in sola scriptura, I had a difficult time accepting that my wife’s annulment was okay and that I was not a sinner in God’s eyes by sleeping with an already married woman. Since I married her as a Catholic (very recent convert at that time) I really had no understanding of the Catholic faith and my “adherence” for lack of a better word, (maybe strength of faith is better) to God’s commandments was at the least, lacking, it didn’t really occur to me at the time that since my wife was married, got divorced, and then annulled in the CC, that I was sinning. Then I got overly concerned once I started studying the Bible (on my own, and often misinterpreting scripture) and not knowing the CC faith well, that passages in the Bible say to all extent, that once validly married, you are married until death. I began freaking out. I could not reconcile what was in the Bible, and what the CCC said. It took over a year for me to accept that her annulment is valid, and I’m not going to hell because I’m sleeping with a married woman.

Now that I’ve finally crossed that bridge, in the end (with a LOT of help in the middle), I just said I needed to have faith that the CC is true, and that all of it is true, and I can’t pick and choose. So now, I simply go by the understanding that even if something may be difficult to accept, I DO accept it, and start studying why to help me better understand why.

 

[Rau]

No – it simply means they’re not “unnatural.” The fact that something is found in nature doesn’t make it moral or immoral. If the Church were to stick with the claim that while homosexuality is found in nature and therefore doesn’t violate the natural order, it is still immoral for reasons x, y, and z, perhaps my struggles with this teaching would lessen. Perhaps.

The Church takes no position on the basis or cause of SSA. That same sex sexual
behaviour might occur in other animals would be scientifically interesting but not relevant to morality, and hence to the Church. So while SSA might be natural, as you use the term, it is at odds with the body, and that makes it contrary to our “nature”. It is in the nature of a defect. We are two sexes each equipped to join sexually with the other sex. That is our nature, a nature we each “know”.