Which Church teachings do you struggle to accept?

[esieffe]

Not taking communion if you suspect you might not be in a state of grace. There are some gray areas in the CCC and I can’t always make it to confession, so while I abstain, I know taking the Eucharist makes me stronger against sin, so I hate missing that opportunity. I always feel closer to Christ after communion as well. Its a real bummer if I have to miss it.

 

[Rau]

I suppose this isn’t a set-in-stone teaching, but I don’t fully understand the Catholic opposition to cremation. I understand that the deceased body must be treated with respect, but I doubt the resurrected body of someone who was cremated would be any different from the resurrected body of someone who was stuck in the ground. Even if their ashes were scattered - though of course this is disrespectful to the body, and shouldn’t be done at all.

I personally would never want to be cremated, however. Even the thought freaks me out…

There is no formal opposition to cremation AFAIK. Perhaps there once was? If so, I assume it was in the nature of cultural practice, not a question of morality.

 

[Rau]

Good points, but do you categorically exclude (c)?

We are not talking about basic foundational beliefs, like the divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection. But receiving communion? When I grew up in Europe we were kneeling, only the priest was allowed to put the wafer on your tongue and you were forbidden to even have a coffee since midnight. That wasn’t that long ago. I know, these are all secondary factors. But I wouldn’t be surprised if you were only allowed to receive communion after a full confession of all your sins, say 500 years ago. Things do change.

Imagine 500 years ago somebody suggesting that we evolved from animals. He/she would certainly have been kicked out, if not burned alive. What was the view of the early Church on slavery? Even the question of abortion was not as clear-cut as it seems now in Catholic teaching, with figures such as St Augustine distinguishing between a vivified and an un-vivified fetus, ensouled and not yet ensouled.

I don’t think I assert the church is wrong on matters of faith or morals.

You appear to be limiting “foundational beliefs” to historical events and related matters. The Church I think has a wider view of what is foundational. It must extend to how we should behave, not just some historical events.

 

[kozlosap]

I just logged on for the first time since I posted this question, and I’m so grateful for all of your answers! I’m learning much from you all and I’m certainly happy to ascertain that I’m not alone.

 

[JackVk]

I struggle with the idea that higher animals like dogs do not have immortal souls, and therefore they more than likely do not experience life after death. I say this not because I “need” them, but for the animals’ own sake.

To me, it seems uncharacteristic of God to create a sentient being whose ultimate end is oblivion. When we respond that God will fulfill the joy we had in our pets, it comes as little consolation; with all due honor to God, the Beatific Vision is too abstract to be comforting. One Catholic blogger I once ran across snidely dismissed believing in animal heaven as “the fidoist heresy”. We’re supposed to bind up the wounds of the brokenhearted, not pour salt on them.

I also find the teaching on the death penalty hard to accept, since the Church used it so frequently before Vatican II, especially to get rid of politically inconvenient people like Giordano Bruno. It comes off as hypocritical of the Church to have such a rapid reversal of doctrine.

Also, when I hear of or think of people who hack, commit identity theft and cybercrime, and create computer viruses, the Church’s death penalty prohibition becomes VERY frustrating! Those who waste their talents ruining the lives of others are just… AAARRRGGGHHH!!! :takethat:

 

[kozlosap]

JackVK - I agree about animals. Thanks something to add to my list to pray about.

 

[MaryT777]

Actually I used to have difficulty with cremation, but they did change that law a long time ago. Not that I like cremation, mind you, but it is a lot easier to cremate someone than go through the normal channels of the traditional funeral. I brought my husband to Arizona in the trunk of my car.

Something else kind of makes me wonder. A cousin remarried after divorcing his first wife. He claimed he tried for an annulment, but was refused. He was not a happy camper.

He told his priest at the church he attended that if he could not receive communion in that church, he would just go to another church.

He got his own way. The priest gave the couple (the cousin and his second wife) a blessing and said they could go to communion after all.

Maybe things like that go on more often than you think?

Yes, a friend I know had remarried without an annulment and after 5 years or so of not receiving Holy Communion she made an apt with the priest. He told her to use her conscience that he was not the Communion Police in his mind.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

That unbaptized innocents (babies, small children, special needs individuals) who die without baptism might not make it to heaven, but a baptized serial killer who repents on his deathbed can?!?!

That all people who die in mortal sin are in hell.

I ponder these issues as well. Yes unbaptized infants is a real troublesome thought for me if they are not in heaven. It’s not their fault they were not baptized of course. But I trust in the Mercy of God.

I always think of Catholics that don’t attend Mass regularly and wonder if they will truly end up in hell of they don’t repent of that before they die.

Mary.

 

[Rau]

I ponder these issues as well. Yes unbaptized infants is a real troublesome thought for me if they are not in heaven. It’s not their fault they were not baptized of course. But I trust in the Mercy of God.

I always think of Catholics that don’t attend Mass regularly and wonder if they will truly end up in hell of they don’t repent of that before they die.

Mary.

It seems to me any number of good people are not baptized. I don’t know where they end up, but I’d be pretty certain that there is no Hell in store for good souls, and I’m not aware of any teaching to the contrary.

 

[Abu]

Kozlosap
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.

1. Contraception of any kind is objectively a grave evil, as taught by Christ through His Church – and all Christian sects were against it until the capitulation by the Anglicans at the Lambeth Conference of 1930.
2. As a valid marriage cannot be dissolved, there is no teaching that could allow the remarried after a divorce to receive the Holy Eucharist.
3. Like everyone else who is not married. The disorder can often be mitigated with the right therapy.

To whom did the Christ give any authority to disobey His teaching through His Church? Real Catholics are those whom Can. 205 (1983) describes as: “Those baptized are fully in the communion of the Catholic Church on this earth who are joined with Christ in its visible structure by the bonds of the profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical governance.”

So we all need to pray, study and learn to be faithful to Christ as he gave us His Church with His authority to teach, sanctify and govern. Christ mandated “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” Lk10:16. Again, Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen and the publican.” (Matt. 18:17).

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.

Do you notice that many people struggle to accept things that are related to their genitals? Your list is included. Not too many (though there are some) people struggle with Church teachings of real theological substance. The Real Presence, The actual resurrection of the Body, Dogma on Mary, Concepts of forgiveness Christ being fully divine and fully human. These are not nearly as struggled with as sodomy, sex without marriage or being open to life. Odd times we live in.

For me it is less about my genital stimulation. But more about things that relate to justice. Like the death penalty, war, Works vs Faith, etc.

Don’t get me wrong, I am no genital saint. But when I sin in carnal and sexual ways, I use God’s channels for Mercy, I don’t struggle with those concepts at all. I know they are wrong and I know why. But my pride and embarrassment does not override my theology and logic.

 

[Tomdstone]

Marriage annulments. A couple is married for 15 years and have several children. There is never any question about the validity of the marriage until the wife gets herself a boyfriend while the husband is at work with two jobs trying to support the family. Her new boyfriend convinces her that 15 years ago when she took her marriage vows that she really did not give full consent and that there was something defective about it 15 years ago. She then applies for the annulment and the Church declares that she was never married. Is this the way that Jesus wanted marriage to be set up? And we are told that it is very difficult for a couple to have a valid marriage even if you are married in the Catholic Church. Actually, the statistics show that in many dioceses in the US, 95% of all applications to have your marriage annulled are approved. In some years there have been more than 50,000 marriages declared null and void. The results are that fewer people are getting married these days because even if they do get married in the Catholic Church, 15 years down the line, the Church can declare that they never were really married.

 

[kozlosap]

Marriage annulments. A couple is married for 15 years and have several children. There is never any question about the validity of the marriage until the wife gets herself a boyfriend while the husband is at work with two jobs trying to support the family. Her new boyfriend convinces her that 15 years ago when she took her marriage vows that she really did not give full consent and that there was something defective about it 15 years ago. She then applies for the annulment and the Church declares that she was never married. Is this the way that Jesus wanted marriage to be set up? And we are told that it is very difficult for a couple to have a valid marriage even if you are married in the Catholic Church. Actually, the statistics show that in many dioceses in the US, 95% of all applications to have your marriage annulled are approved. In some years there have been more than 50,000 marriages declared null and void. The results are that fewer people are getting married these days because even if they do get married in the Catholic Church, 15 years down the line, the Church can declare that they never were really married.

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.

 

[simpleas]

No you aren’t alone.

 

[Loly_Maria]

When I was Catholic, I struggled mostly with the teachings on birth control and abortion, and I had issues with some things related to certain Saints.

 

[Rau]

Marriage annulments. A couple is married for 15 years and have several children. There is never any question about the validity of the marriage until the wife gets herself a boyfriend while the husband is at work with two jobs trying to support the family. Her new boyfriend convinces her that 15 years ago when she took her marriage vows that she really did not give full consent and that there was something defective about it 15 years ago. She then applies for the annulment and the Church declares that she was never married. Is this the way that Jesus wanted marriage to be set up? And we are told that it is very difficult for a couple to have a valid marriage even if you are married in the Catholic Church. Actually, the statistics show that in many dioceses in the US, 95% of all applications to have your marriage annulled are approved. In some years there have been more than 50,000 marriages declared null and void. The results are that fewer people are getting married these days because even if they do get married in the Catholic Church, 15 years down the line, the Church can declare that they never were really married.

How do you access reliable stats on this subject?

The counter- position to the possibility of annulment is to accept that every marriage regardless of circumstances at thd home, is a genuine, fully informed decision, and thus permanent.

As to the “reliability” of tribunal decisions, I would think that the best one can say is “surely they must make errors?”

 

[Tomdstone]

How do you access reliable stats on this subject?

Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate (CARA), Frequently Requested Catholic Church Statistics,
Statistical Yearbook of the Church
Official Catholic Directory
catholicworldreport.com/Item/470/annulment_nation.aspx

 

[IrishAm]

You are not alone. I pray regularly for an understanding of some church teachings (which are not always as illogical as proclaimed on the internet), obedience even in the face of not agreeing, and God’s mercy when I fail to follow the church’s teachings due to my own sinfulness/arrogance/ignorance/stubbornness (pick your word). I do not think it is a sin to intellectually disagree – as long as it doesn’t result in our participating in or promoting sin or causing notable scandal. We are called to obedience, the Holy Spirit either will or will not give us the ability to understand why.

 

[Gorgias]

Marriage annulments. A couple is married for 15 years and have several children. There is never any question about the validity of the marriage until the wife gets herself a boyfriend while the husband is at work with two jobs trying to support the family. Her new boyfriend convinces her that 15 years ago when she took her marriage vows that she really did not give full consent and that there was something defective about it 15 years ago. She then applies for the annulment and the Church declares that she was never married. Is this the way that Jesus wanted marriage to be set up?

Adult congenital heart defects. A person is alive for 50 years. There is never any question about the health of the person until one day, he exhibits a symptom of the condition. His new doctor convinces him that 50 years ago he really wasn’t as healthy as he thought, and there was something of the condition present 50 years ago. He then seeks a specialist’s diagnosis and a doctor declares that, indeed, he has the a heart defect. Is this the way that Jesus wanted cardiac health to be set up?



In other words: the fact that a marriage appeared to be valid at its inception – regardless how long that appearance existed – is still invalid if there was a problem from the very beginning. The fact that the invalidity manifested itself only after a long period of time doesn’t mean that invalidity doesn’t exist, or that there’s a particular injustice in acknowledging the presence of the invalidity.

Actually, the statistics show that in many dioceses in the US, 95% of all applications to have your marriage annulled are approved.

It’s called selection bias. Those potential applications that are discerned to be unlikely to be able to obtain a decree of nullity are discouraged (either subtly or overtly) from moving forward. Therefore, the ones that remain – that is, the ones that actually go through the application process – are already ‘pre-selected’, in a way, for success.

In some years there have been more than 50,000 marriages declared null and void. The results are that fewer people are getting married these days

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

 

[Tomdstone]

Adult congenital heart defects. A person is alive for 50 years. There is never any question about the health of the person until one day, he exhibits a symptom of the condition. His new doctor convinces him that 50 years ago he really wasn’t as healthy as he thought, and there was something of the condition present 50 years ago. He then seeks a specialist’s diagnosis and a doctor declares that, indeed, he has the a heart defect. Is this the way that Jesus wanted cardiac health to be set up?



In other words: the fact that a marriage appeared to be valid at its inception – regardless how long that appearance existed – is still invalid if there was a problem from the very beginning. The fact that the invalidity manifested itself only after a long period of time doesn’t mean that invalidity doesn’t exist, or that there’s a particular injustice in acknowledging the presence of the invalidity.

It’s called selection bias. Those potential applications that are discerned to be unlikely to be able to obtain a decree of nullity are discouraged (either subtly or overtly) from moving forward. Therefore, the ones that remain – that is, the ones that actually go through the application process – are already ‘pre-selected’, in a way, for success.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I see the E. Orthodox system according to which the priest marries the couple as much more reasonable. Further, if there were a small defect at the time of the marriage, after several years of successful married life, many of these psychological concerns about the fullness of consent at the time of the wedding ceremony would be cured by the goodwill of the couple and the operation of the Holy Spirit together with the prayers of the Orthodox Church so that the marriage would then be valid and operational in the eyes of the E. Orthodox Church even if, at the time of the wedding there might have been some small defect in the consent of one of the spouses.
In the Roman system, a couple can be married for 20 or 30 years and everything is going fine, there is no question about the validity of the marriage, from all appearances and even the reality is that up to now, the marriage is a great success UNTIL 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. So after she applies for the annulment, the Church tells the husband that he was never really married to her in the first place. And what do we see as a result of the liberalization of the annulment process. We see a reduced respect for the Sacrament of Matrimony, as more and more couples are questioning the usefulness of getting married. They may ask themselves, why should we spend all that money and get married in the Catholic Church, when 20 years from now the Catholic Church could possibly declare officially that we never had been married. I have a difficult time struggling to accept the Roman Catholic system of annulment as something that Jesus wanted when He established the Sacrament of Matrimony.