Is it ok to....

[qfnol31]

If it does, I most certainly wish to clarify...'cause I'd have been misunderstood.

[jasJis]

Mike D. Your question is too ambiguous. You have to know the whole teaching of the Church before you decide. For example, devotion to a saint or belief in a specific miracle is usually optional. The Church may deem something 'worthy of belief', but not require assent of will to believe it.

The Church specifically says one must follow their conscience, even if it goes against the Church, but the standard for properly forming your conscience and giving full weight to the FULL teaching of the Church IS REQUIRED FIRST. That's the fine print part that many dissenters forget. Also, what you may choose for yourself personally, (when it disagrees w/ the Church) is not to be promoted and taught to others as 'correct'.

btw; I didn't vote because the correct answer isn't there.

Edited August 7, 2005 by jasJis

[Michael D.]

i guess it is kinda ambigious... i wasn't really sure what i was asking i suppose... it was in response to several posts ive read that mentioned things being against church teaching which made them automatically (so it seemed) wrong. though some of this has cleared up my understanding quite a bit. thanks-

[dspen2005]

on matters of faith and morals -- dogma, doctrine -- definitely not... but in cases that do not pertain to these matters -- social policy, environmental policy, etc... then it is permitted to disagree. HOWEVER, as Catholics we are obliged to prayerfully consider the opinions of the Church and to guide ourselves accordingly -- afterall who is the Pope to us, but our Spiritual Director

[Socrates]

When the Church teaches on Faith and Morals, we must agree, period. No excuses.

[Semperviva]

it depends on where you are comin from

if its formal rejection= bad

but then again we don't know why one is rejecting the truth maybe there's some reaoning flaw...we don;t know

[qfnol31]

[quote name='dspen2005' date='Aug 8 2005, 06:22 PM']on matters of faith and morals -- dogma, doctrine -- definitely not... but in cases that do not pertain to these matters -- social policy, environmental policy, etc... then it is permitted to disagree. HOWEVER, as Catholics we are obliged to prayerfully consider the opinions of the Church and to guide ourselves accordingly -- afterall who is the Pope to us, but our Spiritual Director
[right][snapback]677537[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I personally would argue that it's not the opinion of the Church in some cases, but rather just the opinion of the Magisterium...if that makes sense.

Reply 100,000 in the Debate Table.

[Didacus]

I believe that someone should be permitted to disagree with church teachings and doctrines. Everyone has (IMO) at a time or other. While seeking the truth, one has right to question and disagree, and it is actually a part of the learning process on several levels.

What is not acceptable is to disobey the church - disagree if you will, but obey nonetheless.


I would also note that to disagree does not imply teaching against church doctrines. If you disagree, but respect nonetheless the church authority (remain obediant), then you are ok.


On a final note, if you diagree with the church, it is your responsibility to make reasonable steps and efforts to understand the difference ofopinion and try to fully understand church doctrines. Not dong so would constitue a sin (IMO - again). If after full understanding one rejects the church's teachings, then we are no longer talking about a mere disagreement - we are talking about heresy.

[Myles Domini]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

[quote]888 Bishops, with priests as co-workers, have as their first task "to preach the Gospel of God to all men," in keeping with the Lord's command.415 They are "heralds of faith, who draw new disciples to Christ; they are authentic teachers" of the apostolic faith "endowed with the authority of Christ."416

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417

890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

[/quote]

This thread, it seems, deals with the 'teaching' of the Church. That means anything pertaining to the Magisterial authority of Holy Mother Church and thus the only option viable to a Catholic is to accept the Church's teaching and give assent. Regardless of whether the will can persevere in following it or whether the senses particularly like it. We have no choice but to accept that the Church is always right in its magisterial teaching and if your conscience says otherwise then your conscience is wrong (cf. Gaudeum et Spes 16).

We all do wrong but the greatest crime is to try and pass our wrongs off for right.

[qfnol31]

It is okay to question the teachings, and try to discern whence they come, but it's not okay to disagree with the Church's teachings.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with all in Theology of the Body though.

[Aloysius]

if your conscience says otherwise it is in error. but your conscience always binds you to do what it says, to go against your consceince would be wrong even if it was in error.

if it is your fault that your conscience is in error and you follow your conscience, you are culpable for that sin.

if it is not your fault that your conscience is in error and you follow your consceince you are inculpably ignorant of that sin.

if you disobey your erring conscience then there is the sin of doing what you beileved to be wrong whether or not it was your fault.

at least I believe that's how the angelic doctor St. Thomas Aquinas would look at it.

[Myles Domini]

Agreed big Al. I'm just saying when your conscience thinks its ok to go against Holy Mother Church maybe the alarm bells should start going off saying 'maybe I haven't formed it well enough?' After all this seems to be a problem for many people.

[avemaria40]

i used to disagree with church teachings on homosexuality and women priests but after studying it, i understood and now i agree with the church on those issues

[Apathy]

I voted that is was 'just ok'. Everything is just 'ok' to me.

What the use of arguing things anyways? Live and let live or live and let die? Same old same old. Whatever you like is fine by me.


PS: Sloth says hello to everyone. I wish he'd get off the couch and actually get an account of his own for Pete'e sake.

Oh well...

[Laudate_Dominum]

I could never be comfortable with the 'whatever floats you boat' attitude. It has always struck me as a cop out and one of the most uncharitible attitudes to have. I care very much about how my friends and loved ones live their lives because I want what's best for them so they will be happy and ultimately go to heaven.
Of course I would agree that arguing or beating people over the head is not always the loving or constructive approach. Sometimes example or being their for them is the only thing one can do.