the_cave

Whew, finally getting around to this.

Here's part I of my reply with the full understanding that you're playing devil's advocate.

Everyday Catholics, so far as I can tell. I shouldn't really say "debated": questioned, is more like it.



Regular old human skepticism, it seems to me. Maybe they find flaws in the arguments the church uses to support its position. Some people think the church needs to get used to democracy, and is in denial. Others dislike the idea of having their sex lives directed by celibate men. Many women feel the church cannot truly represent their interests for that very reason. Hey, I'm probably just telling you things you already know!

They've done a pretty good job. I admit people sometimes have a hard time separating issues of faith & morals from other issues. But then perhaps some see it as a false dichotomy, who knows--if you can't trust the church to know what to do with pedophile priests, why should you trust them when they tell you that birth control is morally wrong?

I think most Catholics might agree that some teachings are infallible, and are protected by the Holy Spirit. But which ones? How can we tell?

I'll state, however, that modern dissent centers around primarily three issues:

1) male priesthood
2) birth control
3) abortion

To which I might add 4) premarital sex, and 5) homosexuality, though these seem to be secondary issues to many. If the church modified or tempered their position on these 3-5 issues, there would not be a lot of dissent on the others (including infallibility, I bet.)

As you can see, these issues are in some way issues about sexuality. Again, many laity are unsure about the authority of a celibate male hierarchy to make dogmatic statements on this subject. Because they're moderns, and feminists, and democratic, and so on. They notice, for example, that it was women who remained by Jesus' side in the gospels, and who first witnessed the resurrection. They notice that Paul sometimes says he's speaking for himself, and not for God. They notice that Peter was married (the church does in fact recognize that celibacy is a matter of tradition, and not doctrine. But they don't do themselves any favors by being so reluctant to discuss making changes.) They notice little things, and extrapolate from them to bigger things.

Like I say, some have a problem distinguishing between the two, and it's probably unfair. But as I also say, doubting the reason of the hierarchy suggests to some that you can cast doubt on their reason in matters of faith & morals. Again, it depends on what the protection of the Holy Spirit means--what does it mean? And again, how can we tell which teachings are protected? The average layperson wants to know, and I suspect is not often told. There's just a lot of skepticism--if the church can be wrong (Galileo, for example), then it can be wrong, period--never mind faith, morals, the holy spirit, whatever. People need reasons to believe things these days.

What's a skeptic like you doing reading Vatican II? But it's Lumen Genitum, as you mention below, which seems to equate the People of God with the Church:

"Since the kingdom of Christ is not of this world(120) the Church or people of God in establishing that kingdom takes nothing away from the temporal welfare of any people. "

Also sentences like this:

"The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) cannot err in matters of belief. "

Holy cow! What does that mean? I'm unaware of any priest spending even a second of time on that one during his homily...hm, let's read on--

"They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful" (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals"

So...all of a sudden, only the people who agree are right? Well, gee, then all I have to do to keep something from becoming docrine is disagree with it! From a lay perspective, I'm sure this appears to be quite confusing. Again, not a lot of time & effort spent on this one by the bishops.

Now, again, it's a matter of interpretation--who are "the faithful"? Who are "The People of God"? Someone in the pews notices they're at church, believe in God, and are a person. Seems to them, they're in...

But surely there must be some actual difference between the ordinary magisterium and ex cathedra statements? What could be the difference, other than the latter cannot be wrong, and the former could possibly be? Obeying them, then, is merely a matter of obedience...not assent to their truth. That's the impression I get, anyway...



BECAUSE THE CHURCH DOESN'T MAKE THEM. For one thing.

For another, many catholics have divergent opinions about issues 1-5 above, but in everything else, would prefer to keep church traditions. Why become an Episcopalian if you don't have to? Besides, even the Episcopalians are somewhat dogmatically shaky these days, and I can see it turning off a lot of Catholics, faithful in everything besides issues 1-5. And that's really the only other option that such Catholics would have. They like the saints, they like participating in the history, they enjoy the dogmatic security, they don't belive in sola scriptura. Who else is left? Not the Lutherans, and not the Methodists (grape juice? forget it!)

(Personally, I admit they could become Orthodox, but a) Orthodoxy is still somewhat ethnically-based, and b) the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom would be quite an obstacle for most people, I suspect.)

cunegund

Hiya the_cave :)

My devils advocate hat is staying on for the time being.

You asked below why would a skeptic read Vatican II or to other writings.

I had to! :)

I mean, if I’m gonna disagree with something, I’d better know what the heck I’m disagreeing with. One cannot disagree with something that they don’t understand. This is the problem with *some*everyday Catholics…At least I hope it is..cuz if they disagree with certain thing with a complete understanding, that would make them hypocrites in my book. The Faith has no room for them. Or does it?


That’s why I left :)

I couldn’t do the mental gymnastics required to disagree with the very foundations of the faith while being a believer.

I couldn’t ignore the blaring immorality I perceive from certain teachings… I couldn’t deal with the oppressive aspects of certain teachings. Does that make sense?

I also couldn’t buy the “Myth” that I perceive Christianity to be.
Once I began investigating and reading about some stuff…Christianity began to crumble for me.

I’m really glad you did reply. I’ve had this conversation with many people and still haven’t gotten a satisfactory answer. Maybe you’ll provide me something I can get my arms around :)

Everyday Catholics…hmmm...as opposed to?

I’ll speculate that you’re referring to the rank and file Catholics. I’m not sure what other kind there is?

-The Catholics that believe EVERYTHING? You’ve described them as “ultra-traditional”. Is that a bad thing?

Are they the opposite of “everyday” Catholics?

The term “Catholic” and its meaning of “One” or “Universal” has been lost it would appear.

Anyhoo…

Flaws in the arguments? I think that’s part of the issue right there. The church is *not* arguing its position or teachings…this is not open for debate. They’re *not* trying to convince you in any way shape or form…

Where does the everyday Catholic begin to question the Magesterium?

Fallible human skepticism? Whatcha skeptical of? The church that Jesus founded and promised to protect it from error?

For a “Catholic” to assume the teachings are debatable is mistake number one. Especially within the moral teachings (which includes sex). The extra-ordinary Magesterium and the ordinary Magesterium are subject to your personal opinion? How does that work? That is very contradictory to me.

The Churches teachings today are being explained – re-stated – defined … however you’d like to describe it…by the modern hierarchy.

It’s not making an argument to defend the teachings. It certainly isn’t issuing teachings for the first time. It’s not trying to “convince” you that the teaching is right.

What they’re saying is: This is the way it is…and the way it always was…and the way it always will be...usually they try to put it into a context the current audeince can understand...but the teaching is the same.

Can you give me an example of a moral or faith teaching (not discipline) that has changed? Not evolved…but CHANGED.

A moral “wrong” that was made a moral “right”. Good luck. :)

The Catholic Church as a Democracy…hmmm… Really? C’mon…Really? Democracy?

Do you mean something along the line of voting booths in the vestibules of churches? Morals can be decided by a mere majority of *fallen* humans and their selfish opinions?

Democracy means vote right? You’re okay with a voting system of morals? Majority rules?

Technically rape could be voted “moral” by such a system?

Right?

I have a feeling this isn’t what you meant…in which case I’ll ask…what do you mean by democracy?

Democracy and the definition Morals screams relativism to me. If this were to be the case…for the sake of argument…why even have the church? What purpose does it have? The church is the BIGGEST opponent of relativism aren’t they? They posses…infallibly…the *objective* truth on these mattes. Jesus said so.

What happens if *you* disagree with the majority? Murky waters indeed...if ya ask me.

You don’t agree with the current moral system…I’m asking why? Why are you disagreeing with Jesus?

The “celibate men” angle seems like an unfair distraction to me.

It’s easy to make the current curia and hierarchy of the church the “bad guys” so to speak. It makes your own dissent much easier I would think. You don’t disagree with Cathoicisim…you just disagree with some wacky old bishops like Ratzinger who have no authority over you anyhow.

Like I said…dissent becomes easier when you have a tangible human target.

I can’t think of one reason other than that why the current leaders or the church are talked about in this light.

If you were to disagree with the 2000 year history of the teachings…your religion would evaporate.

Nobody is ripping on the Early Church Fathers and writers on birth control and abortion…and they did discuss it.

-Clement of Alexandria
- Hippolytus of Rome
– Lactantius – Epiphanius
- John Chrysostom
– Jerome
– Augustine
- Caesarius

They all spoke out against Birth Control and Abortion a VERY LONG TIME AGO...Why not complain about them?

The “sexual teachings” have been around for 2000+ years. If you’d like quotes from the early writings/authors mentioned above just holler…I can dig them up pretty easily. The teachings that are still around today are not the product of the last 40 years. Humane Vitae *defined* the the teaching in the context of the times. The teaching was ALWAYS there…

The church CANNOT change a moral teaching.

Think about it…how could they?

Taking something immoral and making it moral. Changing a “moral”. Outright change. Doesn’t seem possible to me.

(Devils advocate hat on remember) :)

You may say “slavery” or “incest” as changes in morals, but I’d then direct you to the explanations that have been provided over the centuries on these subjects. Clearly morals do not and cannot change.

And morals are certainly not the product of the “opinion” of everyday Catholics. That pretty much makes it a relativist religion. You wouldn’t want that would you?

The sex issues seem curiously at the forefront in these discussions. Why do you think that’s the case?

That’s a whole ‘nother tangent that is very interesting to me. “Modern” Catholics think sexuality and the morality attached to sexuality is not in the providence of the church and the churches authority…why?

It has been for 2000 years. Even the OT … sex was part of “The LAW”.

Even when people choose to be married in the Church under the *sacrament*…they still choose to ignore the rules of the sacrament. Seems strange to me.

Sexual morality is part of the theology. Simple isn’t it?


I’m gonna be honest here.

The mileage some Catholics are getting from the pedophile priest thing isn’t really fair. You’ve presented, at least to me, a good example of this. One thing has NOTHING to do with the other.

The pedophilia issue makes me sick to my stomach. But, it’s independent of the other issues being raised.

First I’ll say that priests, bishops and the pope are human…they make mistakes…they’re sinners.

They also should be punished SEVERELY.

The “institution” of the church made some monumental blunders that caused untold harm to people. Agreed.

How does this tie in with the morality of Birth Control?

As I said above, the immorality of birth control has been taught for 2000 years. The target gets smaller here….the current US bishops that screwed up on the pedophile thing from a legal and disciplinary perspective is a huge error.

How does that screw-up (of the select US bishops) change the immorality of birth control? Again, I see making the hierarchy of the church the “bad guy” so it’s easier to toss things aside. In your example, it’s just an excuse to attack something you personally don’t like.

But for kicks and giggles….riddle me this…

The authority used to declare the Immaculate Conception or The Assumption...that’s exactly the same use of the same authority to declare birth control immoral. That’s what I’m talking about. NOT the fact that some jamoke bishop decided to hide criminals.

These two things are apples and oranges. Why is the authority right in some cases and wrong in others? You’re really disagreeing with a fundamental portion of your religion here.

Hmmm…it seems so obvious to me. The faith makes it very very clear. I think most “everyday Catholics” don’t take the time to learn about their faith. It’s spelled out very nicely and clearly…we can go here if you’d like :)

I’ll paste this…I got if from Christian Forums a long time ago. I Think Wols was the author…or he lifted it from somewhere…either way…it’s a very efficient and concise description of the teachings…

Deposit is the teachings Jesus passed on to the disciples, and they passed on to us (Scripture and Tradition). They are infallible, divinely inspired, cannot change, and cannot be added to or subtracted from.

Dogma is promulgation on a topic of faith or morals, originating with an assembled council of bishops or a reigning legitimate Pope. It is also infallible, and cannot be altered. It cannot, however, contradict a previous Dogma or the original Deposit.

Doctrine is an explanation of a theological topic which is put forth by various scholars within the Church. It is NOT infallible, and it can be changed, added to, subtracted from abandoned, revived, declared heretical, what have you.

Discipline is a practice imposed by the Church to help the individual Christian in his chosen state in life. Includes clerical celibacy, meatless Fridays in Lent, etc. Not infallible; can be changed, revived, etc.

Devotion is the practice of prayers, readings, veneration of Mary and saints, etc., practiced by the individual Christian. Nowhere near infallible. Lowest rung, can be abandoned or picked up again at the choice of the individual.


Depost – Dogma must be believed by penalty of a mortal sin. You FAITH is required.

Doctrine requires your definitive assent.

Discipline is a stong teaching and the gavity of the sin can be dependent.

Devotion is pretty straightforward.

More explanation below


Male priesthood…married priesthood are disciplines…they can be changed. Although JP2 pretty much said the male priesthood is outside the discipline umbrella. Either way … these are neither “faith nor morals”…and I’ll say they are unlikely to ever change…

Birth Control and Abortion are cornerstones of morality from the Catholic perspective. They are easily defined via the “Natural Law”.

I don’t want to start repeating myself…but what’s not to understand? Why cherry pick these issues to dissent on?

The catechism I supplied in my prior post states this very clearly.
You “know” it’s wrong. It’s written on your heart. Your intentional ignorance is gonna get you in trouble in the eyes of the church. The church teaches in a straightforward fashion that abortion is murder.

I know it’s hard to abide by a teaching that you personally disagree with … the attempt to change it seems strange. Maybe *you* should change religions? No disrespect…I’m trying to entice an answer that I can understand. :)

As someone earlier said…why play checkers with chess pieces? Why ignore the rules?

I think you can also add divorce … assisted birth technologies (ivf etc.) … all the way down to holding hands at the “Our Father” to the above list of “personal” dissents :)

I still don’t know why some things are singled out as “reformable” while others aren’t.

If I were a catholic I’d be pounding the table to reform the doctrine of Hell… :)

It only takes a majority right? :)

I think I gave my perspective above. It’s not a “new” teaching. The celibate males today have NOTHING to do with this teaching. Some would say they have NO power to even change it if they wanted to for some reason. If they *did* want to change it…the very pillars that support the faith would begin to collapse.

Why is sexuality not under the moral umbrella of the church? Marriage in the church is a sacrament as I said…and it has certain rules. Why do you want to ignore those rules? It’s been that way forever and ever.

At the risk of sound harsh…I’ll say theses people you mention are not the first to notice such things. No matter how you slice it…the religion is spelled out very clearly. The *authority* they declare is air tight. If you reject that authority…you reject the ENTIRE Faith!

Don’t you?

If you want links and documentation to anything I’ve said, I’ll be happy to provide it. I think I can make a case that the (self defined) Authority of the church is air tight.

I think most priests would give you a scowl if you said you can discern what has been authoritatively defined within Catholicism and what has not. Pretty bold and arrogant if ya ask me :)

The Catechism…the encyclicals etc…What’s to argue with?

Except the very foundation for the religion :)

I’m only gonna address matters of faith and morals…disciplines are a different animal as you point out. JP2 came out and explained VERY clearly why women couldn’t be priests AGAIN. They do address these things all the time. I can get you the link if you like…

My list of the hierarchy of teachings is above. You’re telling me certain Catholics don’t know this stuff?

Yeah?

Seriously, we get back to the theological terms…vincible vs. invincible ignorance. The Natural Law is known by all…etc…etc…I don’t wanna start repeating myself. Ordianry vs. extraordinary Magesterium…yada yada.

If the church teaches something you’re supposed to assent to it.

What’s the problem?

You’ve asked twice or so now…”How am I supposed to know what’s protected”. It’s all protected in some way or antoher. Do you honestly think the Church is gonna wake up one moring and say Birth Control is now okay…boy oh boy were we wrong? I doubt it....I think you do too.

Devils hat off: YES..the teachings are right from the book of Catches …Ch. 22! Very circular if you ask me…that’s why I left! :)

Devils hat back on:
The faithful are the ones in communion with the pope and the church teachings. If you dissent you’re not really faithful are you?

You’re looking for loopholes…how come?

The religion has been developed for 2000 years. There are no loopholes.

Yet people are continually looking for loopholes. What does that tell you?

I think the answer is right there….”THE AUTHENTIC TEACHING AUTHORTIY OF THE POPE”.

When he declares things ex cathedra…that’s one thing.

But he posses AUTHENTIC AUTHORITY regardless.

The Magisterium has many levels.

From here: http://net2.netacc.net/~mafg/magist03.htm

The layout is not working...

The lines describe the teaching in this order

Teacher Level of Magisterium Degree of certitude Assent required
1. Bishop Ordinary Authoritative Submission
2. Pope Ordinary Authoritative Religious submission of intellect and will
3. Bishops proposing dispersed, but in unison Ordinary
(and universal teaching of the Church) Infallible Catholic Faith *
or definitive assent #
4. Bishops, in union with Pope, proclaiming doctrine at General Council Extraordinary / Solemn
(and universal teaching of the Church) Infallible Catholic Faith *
or definitive assent #
5. Pope 'ex cathedra' Extraordinary / Solemn
(and universal) Infallible Catholic Faith *
or definitive assent #
* Divine and Catholic faith. Faith is demanded if it is part of the deposit of Faith.
# Definitive assent is demanded if it is not revealed, but is connected to Revelation.



Cafeteria Catholics have no grounds to dissent based on the Church Teachings.

I think the dissent is just a means of looking for a loophole.

Like I said…the church as sufficiently covered its bases.

The church knows we’re all sinners. They’re not gonna make anyone leave. But…I’d say a lot of people that may struggle with 1-5 above are TRYING to either live by them or understand them.

Skepticism doesn’t fly as a reason…so I’ll ask again…If you profess to be a catholic, on what grounds do you base your dissent on any teaching …let along 1-5?

You just think they might be wrong? Is that sufficient? Ever hear of a guy named Satan?

A side note on sex…could make a great stand alone thread…cuz the post is long and all over the map. I’ve got to learn how to be efficient when posting…hopefully this all makes some sense…if not I’d be happy to explain further.

Just observations without my devils hat on necessarily

Sex:


The Church has ALWAYS taught that chastity and virginity are SUPERIOR to sex.

Paul, Peter and the apostles left their wives for the most part...they all became celibate...just as Jesus was celibate...That's part of the Theology...Jesus never had sex...and some would say when he was tempted sexually in the desert for 40 days...he was tempted sexually...yet didn't "give in" to that temptation...Sex is bad in the Christian theology...Like it or not. Do you disagree? Why?


JP2 wrote on the subject ... I don't necessarily agree...but what else is new :)

In virginity or celibacy, the human being is awaiting, also in a bodily way, the eschatological marriage of Christ with the Church, giving himself or herself completely to the Church in the hope that Christ may give Himself to the Church in the full truth of eternal life. The celibate person thus anticipates in his or her flesh the new world of the future resurrection.

Sex teachings are at the front and center of morality for Christians.

I’m probably all over the map here. My posting skills will improve with time hopefully.

Please let me know if you’d like something explained better…or a reference…or something that just doesn’t make sense.

Thanks!

cunegund

Someone on another forum (shethinks.org AliciaGoMavs) presented a great analogy on this issue if you ask me...

What's the difference between:

A Catholic using birth control (or insert any dissent)

And

A Meat Eating Vegetarian


Aren't these both contradictions?

If not, then I'd ask for a definition of "Catholic". What's the minimum threshold of belief to be considered Catholic? THe morality of sex would appear to be a foundational matter yet it's tossed aside easily.

Just like not eating meat is a foundational matter of calling yourself a Vegetarian.

You could be "more" than a Vegetarian...you could be a Vegan...but I'm talking about the *minimum*.

If we start with the following statement...how would you refine it?

A *true* Catholic is someone who is in Communion with Rome and gives faithful assent to the Authentic Magisterium of the Church and *all* its teachings <the original deposit of faith..the dogmas..the doctrines..the disciplines and devotions>.

There is One Catholic Truth and that is what a Catholic Believes. No Less.

This probably could be a thread of its own...

I hope I've made sense