Questions for Roman Catholics ...

[McCulloch]

Many Roman Catholics disagree with specific teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These are not areas where the church has been ambiguous or where there has been any indication that their dogma will ever change. These are issues such as the exclusively male priesthood and the reproductive issues of contraception and abortion.

If you are a Roman Catholic:
Do you agree with the Church on these issues? If so, what is your view on those Roman Catholics who disagree on these issues but remain practicing Roman Catholics? If not, why do you remain in the Roman Catholic church? Why not find a church more in line with your actual beliefs?

[Cedar Tree]

Many Roman Catholics disagree with specific teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These are not areas where the church has been ambiguous or where there has been any indication that their dogma will ever change. These are issues such as the exclusively male priesthood and the reproductive issues of contraception and abortion.

If you are a Roman Catholic:
Do you agree with the Church on these issues? If so, what is your view on those Roman Catholics who disagree on these issues but remain practicing Roman Catholics? If not, why do you remain in the Roman Catholic church? Why not find a church more in line with your actual beliefs?

Hello. Although I was baptized in a Maronite Catholic Church by a Roman Catholic priest (because a Maronite priest was not available), I am Catholic nonetheless. I am not sure what you understand about the Catholic Church, so please forgive me if I say what you may already know. To call oneself Catholic, one must profess that what the Catholic Church teaches is true -- when adults become Catholic, they must profess this (in the case of baptized infants and young children, the parents profess to teach their children in the faith). There are certain things that Catholics MUST agree with the Catholic Church (i.e., dogma) and certain things Catholics are free to decide for themselves. Catholic dogma will never change, and can never change as dogma is revealed truth from God. Issues such as abortion and contraception concern the sanctity of human life and faithful Catholics must adhere to Church teaching. Priests must be male because the Church is "female" and priests are, in effect, married to the Church. These doctrines will never change in the Catholic Church -- She cannot change them; it is not within the Church's power to do so.

Other issues that are not dogmatic, such as issues on immigration, social justice and enviromental issues (such as what winepusher mentioned), Catholics are free to disagree.

PS: As far as my stance on Catholics who disagree with Catholic dogma, I would say that they likely do not understand their own Catholic faith. I used to be one of them.

[Cedar Tree]

Firstly, isn't the teaching of the Roman Catholic church that the church is the source of the Bible. The highest spiritual authority on earth is the church, the continuing representation of the Body of Christ, not the Bible.

Secondly, the Bible is not very clear on abortion. But perhaps that is another topic.

I am not sure what you mean when you say that the Catholic Church is the "source of the Bible." Jesus did establish the Catholic Church, endowing it with authority and guidance. However, the Catholic Church has solemnly recognized the books of the Bible as inspired. Indeed, it was the Catholic Church who gathered the books of the Bible and canonized them as inspired writings. So if by "source of the Bible" you meant that it is the Catholic Church who GAVE us the Bible, then I would agree with you.

There are many differing interpretations today on what certain passages of the Bible mean. As a Catholic, when it comes to issues on faith and morals, I trust the Church that Christ founded. ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15)

[McCulloch]

I am not sure what you mean when you say that the Catholic Church is the "source of the Bible."

It was written by people that the Roman Catholic church claims as being their own members and leaders. It was compiled by committees of the Roman Catholic Church. It was published, copied and interpreted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus did establish the Catholic Church, endowing it with authority and guidance. However, the Catholic Church has solemnly recognized the books of the Bible as inspired. Indeed, it was the Catholic Church who gathered the books of the Bible and canonized them as inspired writings. So if by "source of the Bible" you meant that it is the Catholic Church who GAVE us the Bible, then I would agree with you.

Yes, that is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Other churches, on the other hand, take a different view.

There are many differing interpretations today on what certain passages of the Bible mean. As a Catholic, when it comes to issues on faith and morals, I trust the Church that Christ founded. ("But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." 1 Tim. 3:15)

The Roman Catholic Church has been very clear on certain teachings. Those teachings are, it is claimed, never going to change. They are the teachings from God himself. How do you view those who claim to be Catholic and yet deny what the Roman Catholic Church clearly and unequivocally teach as dogma?

[Cedar Tree]

Yes, that is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Other churches, on the other hand, take a different view.

The history is quite clear that Protestants broke away from the (western, or Roman) Catholic Church, hence the name Protest-ant because they protested the Catholic Church (and there were things in some of the Catholic churches that needed to be reformed so they were right to point those out). But the Bible was gathered and compiled in the late fourth or fifth century. Protestants didn't break away from the Church until about a millenium later. Where else do you think the Bible came from if you don't believe the history that it was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church? As I said, Protestant churches did not exist until about a thousand years AFTER the books of Bible was compiled and canonized. The Eastern Orthodox Churches did not become in schism with the Catholic Church until long after the compilation and canonization of the Bible either.

The Roman Catholic Church has been very clear on certain teachings. Those teachings are, it is claimed, never going to change. They are the teachings from God himself. How do you view those who claim to be Catholic and yet deny what the Roman Catholic Church clearly and unequivocally teach as dogma?

Only dogma cannot change. Discipline (such as whether priests can marry) can change. As I said before, I think Catholics who think they can disagree with Catholic dogma don't understand their faith very well.

[McCulloch]

Yes, that is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. Other churches, on the other hand, take a different view.

The history is quite clear that Protestants broke away from the (western, or Roman) Catholic Church, hence the name Protest-ant because they protested the Catholic Church (and there were things in some of the Catholic churches that needed to be reformed so they were right to point those out). But the Bible was gathered and compiled in the late fourth or fifth century. Protestants didn't break away from the Church until about a millenium later. Where else do you think the Bible came from if you don't believe the history that it was compiled and canonized by the Catholic Church?

One view is that what became known as the Roman Catholic Church, is a corruption of the original true church, which did produce the Bible. The Protestants recognized the corruption and sought to reform or to restore the original purity.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches did not become in schism with the Catholic Church until long after the compilation and canonization of the Bible either.

Eastern Orthodox histories would have their side of the schism as the ones holding to the true faith and the Romans as the schismatics.

Only dogma cannot change. Discipline (such as whether priests can marry) can change. As I said before, I think Catholics who think they can disagree with Catholic dogma don't understand their faith very well.

I recognize that there is room for movement on the issues of discipline, for example, an married Anglican priest who converts to Catholicism may remain a priest and remain married.
However, there are those who call themselves Roman Catholics. Who are fully aware of the Roman Catholic teaching about reproductive issues, and women priesthood. Yet still openly practice and advocate that which is contrary to those teachings. I don't think that you can merely palm it off as a lack of understanding.

[Cedar Tree]

One view is that what became known as the Roman Catholic Church, is a corruption of the original true church, which did produce the Bible. The Protestants recognized the corruption and sought to reform or to restore the original purity.

That is a view that really doesn't seem logical to me. Sin does not rule out the possibility of a true church. (Did Jesus not personally choose Judas as one of His Twelve when He specifically knew that Judas would sin and betray him?) When Christ founds a church and promises that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, no matter how much hell tries to grab hold, Christ has promised that it will not fail and so Christians can rest assured that it will not fail (no matter how hard Satan tries). ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Mat. 16:18) So while there were abuses in the Catholic Church at the time of the Protestant Reformation, it makes sense that changes needed to be made so that those abuses would stop. However, instead of reforming the Catholic Church, Martin Luther and other "reformers" totally left the Church and started their own churches. They threw the baby out with the bath water. It is obvious to me that Christ loved sinners and it was sinners He came to save. As a Catholic, I do not expect my fellow Catholics (or other Christians, for that matter) to be perfect or sinless (Did Peter not deny Christ three times?). Surely, we should strive to be like Christ, but we have to recognize that we are in need of God's Grace. Christ came to save us all because we are all sinners.

Eastern Orthodox histories would have their side of the schism as the ones holding to the true faith and the Romans as the schismatics.

Eastern Othodox Churches do not disagree with the Catholic Church as to how the Bible came about.

I recognize that there is room for movement on the issues of discipline, for example, an married Anglican priest who converts to Catholicism may remain a priest and remain married.
However, there are those who call themselves Roman Catholics. Who are fully aware of the Roman Catholic teaching about reproductive issues, and women priesthood. Yet still openly practice and advocate that which is contrary to those teachings. I don't think that you can merely palm it off as a lack of understanding.

I really am not trying to palm anything off. It is just that I cannot tell you what is in the hearts and minds of other people. I know from past experience that I used to think the Church was wrong with respect to abortion. Quite honestly, looking back, I had never really thought that deeply about it; I just thought I didn't agree with the Church. When I discovered that this was an issue that we could not disagree on, I began to research why. It was a long process, but through prayer and really wanting to understand, I now see not only WHY I must agree, but I actually agree with the Church because I have found her arguments to be sound.

[Ann]

Many Roman Catholics disagree with specific teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. These are not areas where the church has been ambiguous or where there has been any indication that their dogma will ever change. These are issues such as the exclusively male priesthood and the reproductive issues of contraception and abortion.

If you are a Roman Catholic:
Do you agree with the Church on these issues? If so, what is your view on those Roman Catholics who disagree on these issues but remain practicing Roman Catholics? If not, why do you remain in the Roman Catholic church? Why not find a church more in line with your actual beliefs?

The dogmas of the Church can never change. This is because the dogmas of the Church are rooted in Divine Revelation.

Abortion is an abomination before God. It is one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Thus, a person claiming to be Catholic and who supports abortion is not Catholic, but a most wicked person.

As far as the priesthood, the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that celibacy or virginity is a superior state to marriage. Paul says the same in Corinthians.

[McCulloch]

The dogmas of the Church can never change. This is because the dogmas of the Church are rooted in Divine Revelation.

Abortion is an abomination before God. It is one of the sins that cries out to Heaven for vengeance. Thus, a person claiming to be Catholic and who supports abortion is not Catholic, but a most wicked person.

I appreciate your honesty and candor.

What about contraception?

As far as the priesthood, the Catholic Church dogmatically teaches that celibacy or virginity is a superior state to marriage. Paul says the same in Corinthians.

My question is not about priestly celibacy. Even the Roman Catholic church is not dogmatic about this. Some priests in the Eastern Rite Roman Catholic church are allowed by canon law to be married and married Anglican priests who convert are allowed to remain Roman Catholic priests and remain married. My question was about the possibility of female priests.

[Ann]

Contraception is a mortal sin against God. This includes NFP, or Natural Family Planning. The teaching of the Church is that any form of birth control is wrong. My position is the same. Contraception is evil by its very nature. I am reminded of the words of Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:

"Any use of the marriage act, in the exercise of which it is designedly deprived of its natural power of procreating life infringes on the Law of God and of nature, and those who have committed any such act are stained with the guilt of serious sin."

The Church has always been against the idea of women priests. As such, I believe it is wrong for a woman to either assist at mass or to enter the priesthood.

[Slopeshoulder]

I think the catechism is an embarassment, a relic, and a joke. I think catechism quoters are zombies. I also think the last two popes are a disaster, and Paul VI was something of a tragedy (read Gary Wills' treatment of the path to the birth control encyclical; he really blew it, big time).

I disagree with the vatican on married priests, female priests, sexual ethics, birth control, homosexuality, etc. I know a married lesbian minister; I'm waiting for a married lesbian priest. And the priest abuse scandal is horrific both in the event and how it was and is both handled framed. Significantly, 99% of my catholic friends, family, teachers, and acquantances over the past 50 years agree. I can actually only think of two exceptions, and I consider them psychos. And don't me started on the company men and lightweights that comprise the current crop of bishops, or the pathetic self-hating gays or ultra-orthodox cases that comprise much of the young priesthood!

BUT, while I rarely go to church, I identify as a (hyphenated) catholic because it's my roots, my lens, my language and cultural references, I like their great thinkers, I tend to think like a catholic, I owe them (Jesuits) two theology degrees (one for me and one for my wife), they taught me empathy, awe, love, etc. as a kid, and I think they have many pockets of great brilliance and discernment for those who care to look. Some sublime stuff. Oh, and they created liberation theology, and had great existentialists too. And the art! I also appreciate their perspective on non-social and economic issues quite a bit. I like their depth and breadth of theology, spirituality, practice, and scholarship.
A bad catholic (by my definition) is a nightmare, but a good catholic (by my definition) is a treasure. I always find that I love those folks, deeply. Big minds, big spirits.
But I do hope we get a decent pope in my lifetime. JP1 looked promising, but he croaked fast.