"You think you know better!"

[tjm190]

It is no secret that there is dissent within the Church- from laymen all the way up to Bishops, a great deal of the faithful reject certain aspects of Church doctrine. And, having been raised in a Catholic environment- I can safely say that these people have made the majority of Catholics I have come in contact with, perhaps even the majority of priests. In fact, it was not until coming to these forums that there was such a backlash against those who do not accept the Magisterium’s teaching as being above question. I have seen many accusations leveled against those who do not accept all Church teaching, particularly in my contraception thread, but in other threads as well not always referring to me- but the most notable was the claim that disagreeing with Church teaching was tantamount to telling the Church “I know better.”
This claim is, in almost all cases, completely unfounded and out of place.
Disagreement does not imply a belief in superiority- it implies the belief that your own reason and intellect have value outside of the ability to agree with said group. If one truly thought they knew better than someone else, one would have no interest in having a discussion to better understand another’s point, and share your own reasoning- what would be the point?
Saying someone thinks they know better is a clear attempt to imply that mere disagreement is an insult to those holding the belief which is being disagreed with- but this is not the case! For example, I disagree with the current administration on many issues- however, I would not claim “I know better”- I have less experience and knowledge in the relevant fields than those making policy. However, my (and your) ability to analyze their arguments and get outside information allows me (and you) to reject the claims put forth by others and form our own beliefs without belittling those holding them.

On a side note, I’ve heard rumors that the belief that Church doctrines should be the subject of debate can be shown to be the result of a relativistic mind set- would anyone care to outline that process for me?

 

[passus]

Uhm, I’m still trying to get past your claim that there are bishops who dissent from the Church’s doctrine…

 

[tjm190]

Uhm, I’m still trying to get past your claim that there are bishops who dissent from the Church’s doctrine…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement

 

[ljubim]

The Catholic Church is not like any government or political machine. Being a member entails believing its Truth fully. The Church doesn’t change its beliefs as time passes, like a government would. One might say, what about infallibility, or Mary’s Assumption? When these doctrines were issued it was only to put into words what the Church has believed all along, mere clarification.

For Catholics to question two thousand years of consistency, or to say that any aspect of it is wrong, is not only ignorant but is trusting their single “reason and intellect” above millions of intellects far greater than theirs… and also above God’s. (I’m not implying majority rule, rather the consistency over time)

Also if people violate this consistency and leave the Church subject to whims and fads it is indeed relativistic. Relativism is saying that there are no absolute truths and that the Church’s Truth depends on the times or what’s culturally acceptable; this is absolutely a lie.

I am sorry if people were being nasty to you on the forums… sometimes people forget to “love their neighbors”

 

[tjm190]

The Catholic Church is not like any government or political machine. Being a member entails believing its Truth fully. The Church doesn’t change its beliefs as time passes, like a government would. One might say, what about infallibility, or Mary’s Assumption? When these doctrines were issued it was only to put into words what the Church has believed all along, mere clarification.

I suppose this is a disconnect- I don’t believe any group of human beings is above error, and so reject infallibility

For Catholics to question two thousand years of consistency, or to say that any aspect of it is wrong, is not only ignorant but is trusting their single “reason and intellect” above millions of intellects far greater than theirs… and also above God’s. (I’m not implying majority rule, rather the consistency over time)

Consistency does not equate to correctness, and God’s will is what we are trying to determine. And I’ve thrown out this Galileo quote a million and one times, but-
Galileo:

I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense , reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.

Your own reason and intellect have value and what you get from them should be trusted! This does not mean you should reject anything that doesn’t seem right initially: this is why we have debate/discussion- to see who’s conclusions are correct

Also if people violate this consistency and leave the Church subject to whims and fads it is indeed relativistic. Relativism is saying that there are no absolute truths and that the Church’s Truth depends on the times or what’s culturally acceptable; this is absolutely a lie.

Relativism states that there is no universal moral code, so everybody can do what they feel- it stems from moral nihilism. Using your own reason to try to determine what God’s will is necessitates the belief in a universal moral standard, and is therefore opposed to moral nihilism and relativism.

I am sorry if people were being nasty to you on the forums… sometimes people forget to “love their neighbors”

Not nasty, just using fallacious arguments.

 

[PapaSquash]

It is no secret that there is dissent within the Church- from laymen all the way up to Bishops, a great deal of the faithful reject certain aspects of Church doctrine. And, having been raised in a Catholic environment…

To reject doctrine is to seperate onself from “the faithful.” Faith being the key concept here. Questioning doctrine, seeking clarification or further instruction, using reason to figure out why doctrine is the way it is, even admitting that one cannot come to terms with why something is doctrine, that’s all OK, and even good as far as it gets you to come to grips with God’s will in your life.

“rejecting” doctrine is just a rephrasing of “non serviam”

 

[gardenswithkids]

It is no secret that there is dissent within the Church- from laymen all the way up to Bishops, a great deal of the faithful reject certain aspects of Church doctrine. And, having been raised in a Catholic environment- I can safely say that these people have made the majority of Catholics I have come in contact with, perhaps even the majority of priests. In fact, it was not until coming to these forums that there was such a backlash against those who do not accept the Magisterium’s teaching as being above question. I have seen many accusations leveled against those who do not accept all Church teaching, particularly in my contraception thread, but in other threads as well not always referring to me- but the most notable was the claim that disagreeing with Church teaching was tantamount to telling the Church “I know better.”
This claim is, in almost all cases, completely unfounded and out of place.
Disagreement does not imply a belief in superiority- it implies the belief that your own reason and intellect have value outside of the ability to agree with said group…

I was also raised in a Catholic environment, and I am fully aware of the frequency of dissent that you mention.

That frequent dissent is one of the reasons why I married a Protestant and eventually left the Church for a while to attend my husband’s Lutheran Church–I saw little difference between Protestants and Catholics. (Martin Luther was a Catholic priest when he began raising his objections and spreading his own theology, proving not all priests and highly educated Catholics teach in accordance with the Church.) After several years away, I returned to the Catholic Church. I hadn’t been completely unaware of Church teachings before I left, but when I returned I felt compelled to study them in more detail, particularly the Church teaching against contraception.

Based on personal experience, many who dissent from the Catholic Church teachings are NOT thinking independently. They follow secular culture and the many dissenters in the Church who misuse their positions of authority to spread heresy. While you think some here are telling you not to question the Church, some of us are inviting you to question what you’ve learned from secular culture and dissenters within the Church.

You believe your reason and intellect have value–I believe they do too, which is why I invite you to question those who tell you the Church is wrong about contraception.

 

[tjm190]

To reject doctrine is to seperate onself from “the faithful.” Faith being the key concept here. Questioning doctrine, seeking clarification or further instruction, using reason to figure out why doctrine is the way it is, even admitting that one cannot come to terms with why something is doctrine, that’s all OK, and even good as far as it gets you to come to grips with God’s will in your life.

“rejecting” doctrine is just a rephrasing of “non serviam”

With respect to doctrine, if one questions, seeks clarification, and uses reason and is still unsatisfied, rejection is the only logical option.

 

[tjm190]

I was also raised in a Catholic environment, and I am fully aware of the frequency of dissent that you mention.

That frequent dissent is one of the reasons why I married a Protestant and eventually left the Church for a while to attend my husband’s Lutheran Church–I saw little difference between Protestants and Catholics. (Martin Luther was a Catholic priest when he began raising his objections and spreading his own theology, proving not all priests and highly educated Catholics teach in accordance with the Church.) After several years away, I returned to the Catholic Church. I hadn’t been completely unaware of Church teachings before I left, but when I returned I felt compelled to study them in more detail, particularly the Church teaching against contraception.

I don’t think you made this error, but don’t confuse dissent with a lack of education.

Based on personal experience, many who dissent from the Catholic Church teachings are NOT thinking independently. They follow secular culture and the many dissenters in the Church who misuse their positions of authority to spread heresy. While you think some here are telling you not to question the Church, some of us are inviting you to question what you’ve learned from secular culture and dissenters within the Church.

You believe your reason and intellect have value–I believe they do too, which is why I invite you to question those who tell you the Church is wrong about contraception.

My rejection of particular church doctrine is not a result of any outside influence- I simply heard the doctrine, contemplated, questioned, and eventually rejected it without any help from those evil protestants.

 

[PapaSquash]

With respect to doctrine, if one questions, seeks clarification, and uses reason and is still unsatisfied, rejection is the only logical option.

Only if you start from the premise that “you know better”.

 

[john_ennis]

I don’t think people here would generally fault a non-Catholic for simply disagreeing with Church doctrine. It’s just that by starting off saying “I’m Catholic,” and then saying that one disagrees with some official doctrine, that person is contradicting himself/herself.

To be Catholic is to believe that the Church’s basic claim of authority to teach God’s word is true.

Otherwise, it’s like saying, “I’m a feminist, but I just don’t believe in equal rights for women.”

Peace

John

 

[johngh]

I will agree that a lot of Catholics i’ve met do disagree with the Church on one or more issues. I think it is very telling that something like 80% of Catholics use birth control, and there are plenty of Catholics that have had abortions. There are Catholics that reject the Eucharist, Catholics that reject Mary, etc.

Of course, I think in this case you have define what you mean by Catholic. If you mean Catholic as in a member of the Catholic church but only goes to mass twice a year, then I think the percentage of dissidence is going to be much higher than Catholics that go to Mass every Sunday.

 

[tjm190]

Only if you start from the premise that “you know better”.

If you started with “you know better” you would disagree with church doctrine and then drop it and that would be the end of it. By seeking out more information about said doctrine and engaging is discussion with those who have accepted the belief you qualify your disagreement.
There’s a difference between saying “I disagree, so you’re wrong” and “I have a disagreement that seems logically valid”

 

[tjm190]

I don’t think people here would generally fault a non-Catholic for simply disagreeing with Church doctrine. It’s just that by starting off saying “I’m Catholic,” and then saying that one disagrees with some official doctrine, that person is contradicting himself/herself.

To be Catholic is to believe that the Church’s basic claim of authority to teach God’s word is true.

Otherwise, it’s like saying, “I’m a feminist, but I just don’t believe in equal rights for women.”

Peace

John

Hence the “dissident” in front of my religion. And the Church’s primary goal is not it’s own infallibility, so the feminist analogy is fatally flawed.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…My rejection of particular church doctrine is not a result of any outside influence- I simply heard the doctrine, contemplated, questioned, and eventually rejected it without any help from those evil protestants.

So you say, but you also sight the dissent of bishops and priests from Humanae Vitae as part of your justification/back-up for why it’s okay to reject Church Doctrine. Not “protestants” but authorities within the Catholic church who preach another theology that is not in union with the Church teachings. (Certainly not simply the “uneducated”, but perhaps the “over-educated” who have been mis-educated and who do place great value and pride on their intellect. I gladly leave it to God to judge such persons for preaching dessent from within Catholic institutions.) You stated you are well aware of the dissent, as am I. Based on your awareness of the frequency of dissent in particular on sexual issues, do you really think your rejection of any particular church doctrine is your very own original idea?

 

[kage_ar]

Be careful, you are playing on the slippery slope of heresy.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Faith

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[Just_Lurking]

In fact, it was not until coming to these forums that there was such a backlash against those who do not accept the Magisterium’s teaching as being above question.

I suspect this is related to the group of posters here who are deathly afraid that people will read the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Catholicism and find out what real-world Catholics think and believe.

 

[tjm190]

So you say, but you also sight the dissent of bishops and priests from Humanae Vitae as part of your justification/back-up for why it’s okay to reject Church Doctrine. Not “protestants” but authorities within the Catholic church who preach another theology that is not in union with the Church teachings. (Certainly not simply the “uneducated”, but perhaps the “over-educated” who have been mis-educated and who do place great value and pride on their intellect. I gladly leave it to God to judge such persons for preaching dessent from within Catholic institutions.) You stated you are well aware of the dissent, as am I. Based on your awareness of the frequency of dissent in particular on sexual issues, do you really think your rejection of any particular church doctrine is your very own original idea?

Believe it or not I wasn’t aware of the Winnipeg Statement until a few short months ago, although I had heard that some Church teachings were “being questioned” as far back as middle school. And aside from knowing of their dissent, I haven’t actually heard any arguments from the dissenters that I could be able to go over- as I said, I formed my own arguments for rejection. So- while I may not be unique in my rejection, I believe it is the result of original thought.

 

[Tosk]

What do you believe the RCC is? If you believe that the Church is not what it claims to be why remain Catholic?

Do you disagree wtih any other issues other than the pelvic issues? I only ask because sexual issues are very personal and it is very tempting to find logical problems when somebody tries to tell you what you can and can’t do with your pelvis.

 

[tjm190]

Be careful, you are playing on the slippery slope of heresy.

Before reading the rest of your post, let me state that the “slippery slope” is a logical fallacy and should be avoided. You’re on a slippery slope to ad hominem attacks!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Faith

2087 Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Hmm… the CCC is stating we are not to disagree with it, and if we do disagree with it we are to pretend we don’t. This comes as no surprise.