Question for Catholics

[benfranklin]

Disclaimer: I have no dog in this fight. I do not belong to any church. But as one who was brought up Catholic, I am always curious about what is going on in the Church. And these issues are getting a lot of attention now.

Modern American Catholics (MACs) professed to greatly admire Pope JP II, but were highly critical of him for not changing Church doctrine on issues like abortion, homosexuality, birth control, etc., etc. MACs hate to see him go, but look forward to the possibility of a new Pope who will bring the Church more in line with their own views.

The Catholic Church is a religion, and according to my dictionary, a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith". Pro-life, non-gay, etc., are not positions taken by the Church, they ARE the Church. How can someone say that this is my religion, but I don't agree with its principles and values and beliefs?

Love him or hate him, JPII was adamant about not varying from the core beliefs of the Church. I find it incredible that anyone could say, this is my church, I don't agree with the beliefs of my church, therefore the church should change its beliefs. Am I the only one who finds this paradoxical? Or hypocritical? If you don't belive what "your" church believes, why don't you join a church that teaches what you believe in?

Finally, one of the bedrock truths of the Catholic Church embedded in my mind forever from the schooling of my youth is that the Pope is infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine. Again, what's wrong with this picture? MACs say that they are Catholics, and JPII was their Pope, and that as Catholics they believe that JPII is infallible in matters of doctrine. BUT the Pope is wrong and the Church is wrong and the Pope needs to change his beliefs to conform with my beliefs, because I am a modern American, and I know what's what.

At the risk of interjecting poker into this forum, this to me is like saying that my game is limit holdem, and I don't like any other games. But limit holdem might be better played with 4 pocket cards. And let's play it hi-lo split. And even better, let's make it pot-limit.

To go back to that definition of religion, the key word in talking about religion is "faith". You have to have faith that your religion is correct, and follow it. You can't prove anything about religion, you have to believe it. The Catholic Church is a faith. Islam is a faith. Judaism is a faith. How can you claim to belong to a religion and not have faith in its teachings? I don't get it. I guess I'll just go find a good Omaha/8 game.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
one of the bedrock truths of the Catholic Church embedded in my mind forever from the schooling of my youth is that the Pope is infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong on both counts (at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church) and the rest of your assertions are baseless.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
a religion is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
one of the bedrock truths of the Catholic Church embedded in my mind forever from the schooling of my youth is that the Pope is infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong on both counts (at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church) and the rest of your assertions are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding the first quote, that is the definition of religion in my dictionary. It is copied verbatim. It seems to me to be a reasonable description of the common meaning of the word religion. If you don't like, propose a better one, don't just tell me that my dictionary is wrong.

Regarding infalibility, the following is from The Catholic Encyclopedia:

[ QUOTE ]
EXPLANATION OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra -- that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church -- is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 -- old no. 1680).

[/ QUOTE ]

[vulturesrow]

Actually, the Pope is considered infallible in the terms that ben described. Im not surehow you think this is wrong.


Ben,

As a Roman CAtholic, I couldnt agree with you more. I loved JPII, I think he will probably be renamed John Paul the Great and deservedly so. I dont understand people who say I am religion x but religion x is wrong on this this this and this. Esp. in the case of the Catholic Church where we look to the Church for guidance and interpretation of scripture and God's will.

[PoBoy321]

Regarding your first quote, the description that you took from the dictionary is inaccurate with regards to the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC is an institution with a set of beliefs, moreso than a set of beliefs with an insitution to enforce them. Much in the same way that an American can disagree with American foreign policy and still be an American, a Catholic can disagree with Catholic positions on soccial issues and still be a Catholic. There are very few beliefs that all Catholics must have, those being the Immaculate Conception, Christ's Resurrection and maybe one or two others. The rest is up to debate.

As for Papal Infallibility, he is NOT infallible in pronouncements about Church doctrine. It has always been the Church's position that the Church is a human institution, human's are fallible and therefore, the Church is fallible. However, there are some instances (there have only been 2 in the 2000 year history of the Church) in which the Pope will make a pronouncement which is infallible (there are a few criteria for what makes a pronouncement infallible, and I'd look them up but I have class in a half hour and need to do some work for it, so I'll find it later). Your original statement made it appear that the Pope was infallible in ALL pronouncements, which is flatly wrong.

So I'll say it again.

[ QUOTE ]
You're wrong on both counts (at least concerning the Roman Catholic Church) and the rest of your assertions are baseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Bigdaddydvo]

[ QUOTE ]
Modern American Catholics (MACs) professed to greatly admire Pope JP II, but were highly critical of him for not changing Church doctrine on issues like abortion, homosexuality, birth control, etc., etc. MACs hate to see him go, but look forward to the possibility of a new Pope who will bring the Church more in line with their own views.


[/ QUOTE ]

These MACs are who Traditional Catholics (like myself) playfully refer to as "Ala Carte" Catholics...Catholics who pick and choose what they want to believe in the Faith. Many of these want the Church to accomodate, accept, and conform its teaching to their particular behaviors (e.g. birth control, abortion, and living together before marriage) The Church teaches what it does because She believes those teachings are firmly rooted in the Gospel, the teachings of Christ, and Church Tradition. It isn't the Church's job to change its teachings to fit a particular member's behavior, rather it's that member's responsibility, in wishing to remain in full communion with the Church, to modify his or her behavior to conform with Church teachings.

What is striking about the American Church is that the Faith in more conservative and traditional Dioceses continues to thrive in the way of Mass attendence, new members and priestly vocations (like Wichita KS or Lincoln NE) while it struggles in those areas in more "liberal" Dioceses like Los Angeles.

[KJS]

[ QUOTE ]
How can someone say that this is my religion, but I don't agree with its principles and values and beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

I also grew up Catholic and attended 12 years of Catholic school. I am not a believer in any religion today. My parents are still churchgoing folks but my mother is quite dismayed about the Vatican's views on the role of women and gays. If she were to read your post I believe she would answer that she very much enjoys the rituals involved in being Catholic, ie. mass, baptism, weddings, funerals, and uses those times to reflect on her life and faith in God. The fact that she disagrees with the church hierarchy on social matters does not compel her to give up on the positive side effects she gets from attending mass and being in a community of believers. She also attended Catholic college during Vietnam and Vatican I, and is very much a believer that instead of leaving the church, you agitate from within. To that end, she is a part of a group of women who are working towards the goal of having women priests.

I think many people belong to groups but don't agree with their principles 100%. But these disagreements are not so bad to overwhelm the benefits of membership.

KJS

[CCass]

Your question is about Catholics specifically, but I think it could be applied to many religions. I have never understood how anyone that calls themselves a Christian (follower of Christ) could ignore/disagree with something written in the Bible (especially the New Testament). It is either the inspired word of God, or it isn't.

God expects us to form our lives around his Word, not form his Word around our lives.

[Dead]

The bible allows slavery.

I guess Christians shouldn't be allowed to disagree with it.

[BCPVP]

That's your half of the bible [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]