"You think you know better!"

[Rico_S]

I don’t believe any group of human beings is above error, and so reject infallibility

But isn’t t this group different than any other group of human beings in that it is guided by the Holy Spirit on issues of faith and morals? Is that not fundamental to Catholicism?

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 supoose it depends on how you define relativism, but imo using one’s own reason to try to determine God’s will on the truth of a particular morality issue seems like the very definition of relativitism. Are the countless protestant denominations not the fruit of such thinking?

Do you not see that if we can reject the teachings of the church, even after much study and for logical reasons… if we can disregard church teachings on morality b/c we disagree with it…the foundation of the Catholic Church is undermined?

 

[tjm190]

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

I believe the Church is the organization that best represents the teachings of Christ. Best does not equate to perfect.

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.

That and infallibility. Questionable on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, but this one is of little consequence (to me atleast)

 

[tjm190]

I supoose it depends on how you define relativism, but imo using one’s own reason to try to determine God’s will on the truth of a particular morality issue seems like the very definition of relativitism. Are the countless protestant denominations not the fruit of such thinking?

Again, relativism states each individual is to determine his own moral code. Questioning Church doctrine doesn’t do this at all, but questions whether or not a particular doctrine truly represents the universal moral code.

 

[kage_ar]

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!

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.

Slippery slope is common sense!

Have you ever been to a river? After the rain, the ground is muddy. Mud is very slippery. One who plays on a slippery slope is taking a chance that they will lose footing and slide into the raging river below.

Ya also might want to check and see what ad hominem means, I’d define it for you but history shows you do not like to have terms defined

 

[gardenswithkids]

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.

While you may not have heard the specific arguments, you knew that some within the Church questioned Church teachings. That probably left you with the impression that it is perfectly acceptable to reject Church teachings while still considering yourself a Catholic is good standing.

There’s nothing “original” about rejecting the Church teachings against contraception anymore. Society rejects those same Church teachings. Depending on your age and viewing habits, you may have also grown up with exposure to comercials for contraception on tv. Those dancing, prancing women rejoicing in the freedom of “sex without consequence” that advertise some new, improved contraception–often followed by the ads for herpes medication.

In your other thread, you questioned Church teachings and many other things we wrote without really presenting your own arguments other than questioning Church doctrine. If you care to expand, what exactly are your arguments to support use of contraception? What do you think is the purpose of sex if not (in part) pro-creation?

 

[PapaSquash]

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”

OK. Then we may not be very far apart at all. I’d say that this person (you perhaps) is “questioning, seeking clarification and using reason” while grappling with a point of dogma. That person may remain unsatisfied with the result (welcome to earth) but still struggles on with trying to conform their will to the will of God. That’s all good, as the kids say today.

The danger is when you make the decision which way to slice it when in doubt. Does doubt go your way or the Church’s way? Who do we intially assume is right (or to put it another way “knows better”)? Do we “reject” a teaching, or struggle with accepting it?

Remember that the nature of orginal sin is the belief that we have knowlege of good and evil.

 

[allhers]

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!

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.

Or…you could study and learn Catholic Church teaching and then discover where you went wrong.

Then, you could go to confession, get over yourself and get back on track. Thats another option.

 

[tjm190]

Slippery slope is common sense!

Have you ever been to a river? After the rain, the ground is muddy. Mud is very slippery. One who plays on a slippery slope is taking a chance that they will lose footing and slide into the raging river below.

Ya also might want to check and see what ad hominem means, I’d define it for you but history shows you do not like to have terms defined

The slippery slope fallacy falsely ties an event in question to a bad event with no real basis- it’s fallacious to tie two events together with no real proof. Rejecting on Church teaching does not mean one is on his/her way to rejecting all Church teachings.
I know you weren’t going into ad hominem there, but you’re on a slippery slope!

 

[Rico_S]

. Questioning Church doctrine doesn’t do this at all, but questions whether or not a particular doctrine truly represents the universal moral code.

How do you know if something is truly representative of the universal moral code?

 

[tjm190]

OK. Then we may not be very far apart at all. I’d say that this person (you perhaps) is “questioning, seeking clarification and using reason” while grappling with a point of dogma. That person may remain unsatisfied with the result (welcome to earth) but still struggles on with trying to conform their will to the will of God. That’s all good, as the kids say today.

… God’s will is manifest in morality. Anyone trying to determine the validity of Church teaching on morality is clearly trying to conform their will to God’s.

The danger is when you make the decision which way to slice it when in doubt. Does doubt go your way or the Church’s way? Who do we intially assume is right (or to put it another way “knows better”)? Do we “reject” a teaching, or struggle with accepting it?

Nobody is assumed correct, who is correct is meant to be determined through debate and discussion.

Remember that the nature of orginal sin is the belief that we have knowlege of good and evil.

Hmmm? Creationism being silly aside, didn’t we gain the knowledge of good and evil through original sin (at a terrible cost of course)?

 

[tjm190]

How do you know if something is truly representative of the universal moral code?

Scripture and logic. That’s how the Church does it anyway.

 

[PapaSquash]

The slippery slope fallacy falsely ties an event in question to a bad event with no real basis- it’s fallacious to tie two events together with no real proof. Rejecting on Church teaching does not mean one is on his/her way to rejecting all Church teachings.
I know you weren’t going into ad hominem there, but you’re on a slippery slope!

Look up “heresy.” The greek root of the word means “to cut.” You do not have to be on the path to rejecting all Church teaching to be on the path to heresy. All you need to do is be on the path to carving out a subset of teachings that you want to reject or change.

Questioning one teaching, or even remaining unable to accept it, is not yet heresy. Working toward a new moral and/or theological order being built up around one’s personal disaffection with teaching, however reasoned, is.

 

[Langdell]

This is a topic of tremendous interest to me.

I think the starting point of analysis should not be “Who is/isn’t a good Catholic?” but “What do you hope to accomplish by following Catholicism?” Catholicism offers a means (many would say, the surest means) of receiving grace and the gift of eternal life. If that is what you want from Catholicism, then you can be confident of achieving it in proportion to how accepting you are of the teachings of the Church. The more teachings you reject, the greater the risk that the Church and its sacraments are doing you no good.

Still, it’s not just a matter of adding up what teachings one accepts. Your “culpability” also counts – What has your life been like? What have you been exposed to? Are you sincerely doubting certain teachings for good reasons or only because they are inconvenient? Are you continuing to educate yourself? Do you remain open to enlightenment from the Holy Spirit and God’s authorities on earth? Do you express your doubts in a way that causes vulnerable believers to doubt? Etc.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Or…you could study and learn Catholic Church teaching and then discover where you went wrong.

Then, you could go to confession, get over yourself and get back on track. Thats another option.

Confession Great idea, but he doesn’t have to wait. Sin blocks the intellect. It is difficult–nay, impossible–to accept and understand Church teachings without God’s grace. The Sacrament of Confession is a great source of grace (even if he gets one of those dissenting priests he’s written about–the Sacraments provide grace regardless of the the personal holiness of the priests administering those Sacraments.)

tmj–it’s okay to question and struggle with Church teachings. It’s expecially okay to struggle with them–just as it’s okay to struggle with sin. We* must* struggle with sin, because the alternative of not struggling with sin usually involves giving up and commiting sin.

As you don’t understand this Church teaching, I suggest that you bring this to Confession–it would be admitting in the Confessional what you have already confessed to us here.

 

[tjm190]

While you may not have heard the specific arguments, you knew that some within the Church questioned Church teachings. That probably left you with the impression that it is perfectly acceptable to reject Church teachings while still considering yourself a Catholic is good standing.

Perhaps, although I have my own reasons for rejecting infallibility.

There’s nothing “original” about rejecting the Church teachings against contraception anymore. Society rejects those same Church teachings. Depending on your age and viewing habits, you may have also grown up with exposure to comercials for contraception on tv. Those dancing, prancing women rejoicing in the freedom of “sex without consequence” that advertise some new, improved contraception–often followed by the ads for herpes medication.

Not original as in “novel”, original as in coming from the self. I’m not one to read someone else’s book or essay before forming an opinion.

In your other thread, you questioned Church teachings and many other things we wrote without really presenting your own arguments other than questioning Church doctrine. If you care to expand, what exactly are your arguments to support use of contraception? What do you think is the purpose of sex if not (in part) pro-creation?

I believe contraception is morally neutral- I don’t support or condemn its use. As a result, I would argue against anyone who claims it is intrinsically good or evil.

 

[Rico_S]

Scripture and logic. That’s how the Church does it anyway.

I was interested in how you know if something is represesentative of the univeral moral code.

 

[tjm190]

Look up “heresy.” The greek root of the word means “to cut.” You do not have to be on the path to rejecting all Church teaching to be on the path to heresy. All you need to do is be on the path to carving out a subset of teachings that you want to reject or change.

Questioning one teaching, or even remaining unable to accept it, is not yet heresy. Working toward a new moral and/or theological order being built up around one’s personal disaffection with teaching, however reasoned, is.

Labels don’t get is anywhere. I believe Church teachings are not beyond question- if that makes me a heretic, bad Catholic, infidel, in your mind you are welcome to refer to me in those terms.

 

[tjm190]

I was interested in how you know if something is represesentative of the univeral moral code.

… Through scripture and reason.

 

[tjm190]

tmj–it’s okay to question and struggle with Church teachings. It’s expecially okay to struggle with them–just as it’s okay to struggle with sin. We* must* struggle with sin, because the alternative of not struggling with sin usually involves giving up and commiting sin.

If questioning whether or not something is morally wrong or not necessitates confession then I can not honestly ask for absolution.

As you don’t understand this Church teaching, I suggest that you bring this to Confession–it would be admitting in the Confessional what you have already confessed to us here.

Now I’m pretty sure you have confused disagreement with a lack of understanding.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I believe contraception is morally neutral- I don’t support or condemn its use. As a result, I would argue against anyone who claims it is intrinsically good or evil.

Okay, but please explain further. Not just about contraception, but about the actions that seek to separate sex from pro-creation. Do you think sex is morally neutral?