Senator Miriam Santiago’s theological argument for the Reproductive Health Bill relies on the Catholic doctrine called “primacy of conscience.” But some conservative Catholics think her understanding is flawed, one of her many “booboos” intended to “mislead faithful Catholics.”
Is Sen. Santiago misleading Catholics when she argues that primacy of conscience allows Catholics to dissent on the RH Bill? Or are conservative Catholics just defensive because she found a loophole that allows Catholics to be progressive in such issues?
The answer is complicated, so I’ll try to state it simply before expounding. Primacy of conscience means that a Catholic must act consistently with her[1] conscience. However, a Catholic must also have a conscience that’s consistent with the teachings of the Church. Taken by itself, primacy of conscience gives Catholics freedom. Taken in context, it gives Catholics freedom to do what the Church tells them.
Conscience and Contraception
Consider contraception. The Church teaches that contraception is inherently evil. Catholics have an obligation to believe this — to make it part of their conscience. When a Catholic fails to believe this — or hold it as definitive — she is fully responsible for this sin (failure to believe) and is no longer in full communion with the Church[2]. When she uses a condom, she acts according to her conscience. Due to primacy of conscience, the sinful action cannot be fully blamed on her — she’s only fully responsible for the sin of doubt.
Yes, she had freedom to use contraception — she does have free will (another complicated doctrine) — and was even right in doing so according to primacy of conscience. But she did not have freedom to believe that contraception was OK — primacy of conscience only applies to actions, not beliefs.
In a nutshell, it was right to act according to her conscience, but wrong to form her conscience independent of the Church.
Conscience and Confusion
If I failed to explain that simply enough, you can’t blame me — primacy of conscience is one of the most easily misunderstood Catholic doctrines. This is why Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Melbourne, has been fighting against the doctrine for years:
“The doctrine of the primacy of conscience should be quietly ditched . . . because too many Catholic youngsters have concluded that values are personal inventions.” Furthermore, the primacy of conscience is “a dangerous and misleading myth.” In fact, according to Pell, “in the Catholic scheme of things, there’s no such thing as primacy of conscience.”
Cardinal Pell is not alone. Although he doesn’t want to ditch the doctrine, Pope John Paul II understands how misleading this doctrine can be:
There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly… To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience.
— Pope John Paul II, Papal Encyclical Veritatis Splendor
The Vatican also acknowledges this confusion by warning of the “mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching [emphasis mine]” which leads to erroneous judgment.
Conscience and Obligation
As Pope John Paul II explained, the confusion comes from extending primacy of conscience from the realm of actions to the realm of beliefs. And because one acts as one believes, Catholics have the obligation to educate their beliefs first:
Although each individual has a right to be respected in his own journey in search of the truth, there exists a prior moral obligation, and a grave one at that, to seek the truth and to adhere to it once it is known. As Cardinal John Henry Newman, that outstanding defender of the rights of conscience, forcefully put it: “Conscience has rights because it has duties”
Here Pope John Paul II explains that Catholics have a right to follow their conscience because they have a duty to follow the Church. And in case you’re wondering why I equated seeking the truth with following the Church, he made it very clear:
The Church’s Magisterium also teaches the faithful specific particular precepts and requires that they consider them in conscience as morally binding… When people ask the Church the questions raised by their consciences, when the faithful in the Church turn to their Bishops and Pastors, the Church’s reply contains the voice of Jesus Christ, the voice of the truth about good and evil.
But what about the current pope? Like many progressive Catholics, Sen. Santiago often uses Pope Benedict’s following statement:
Above the pope as an expression of the binding claim of church authority,” writes Ratzinger, stands one’s own conscience, which has to be obeyed first of all, if need be against the demands of church authority.
But that’s only part of the picture. Taken by itself, it does seem like the pope’s statement allows Catholics to dissent. But taken in context, Pope Benedict’s statement is consistent with those of Pope John Paul II and official Vatican teaching. He explains that although following conscience is a duty and is never wrong, informing conscience is also a duty, and neglecting to do so is always wrong:
It is never wrong to follow the convictions one has arrived at—in fact, one must do so. But it can very well be wrong to have come to such askew convictions in the first place… The guilt lies then in a different place, much deeper—not in the present act, not in the present judgment of conscience but in the neglect of my being which made me deaf to the internal promptings of truth. For this reason, criminals of conviction like Hitler and Stalin are guilty.
— Pope Benedict XVI (then Fr. Ratzinger) while serving as Chair of Dogmatic Theology at the University of Tübingen in 1968
Conscience and Clarification
There are two variables at play here. Let’s call them the two duties of conscience:
- Educate your conscience.
- Obey your conscience.
Primacy of conscience only applies to the second duty, and fulfilling it is not complicated: following your conscience is right, not following it is wrong. But primacy of conscience does not apply to the first duty. For this, primacy of Church is the rule: believing the Church is right, not believing it is wrong. With this, we come up with the duties of conscience according to the Catholic Church:
- Believe what the Church says should be in your conscience.
- Obey your conscience.
And if your conscience is consistent with what the Church says — and Catholics have a moral obligation to ensure this[2] — then we finally have this:
- Obey the Church.
Where did the primacy of conscience go? This is what our investigation has finally revealed. In the words of Cardinal Pell, “in the Catholic scheme of things, there’s no such thing as primacy of conscience.” At least not in any meaningful sense that actually grants Catholics freedom. Because as Rosa Luxemburg said, freedom is always the freedom of dissenters.
In the Catholic scheme of things, Catholics have a duty to obey the Church. But the clergy won’t tell you this. They’d prefer to tell the laity that their only duty is to believe, and I think progressive Catholics would prefer this, too. Why? Because Catholics are proud and even honored to be called believers. What do you call someone who is bound to obey?
_______
[1] I’ll use the female pronoun because it’s RH and also to remind you that we’re celebrating 100 years of International Women’s Day.
[2] The Catholic Church requires all Catholics to accept three kinds of truths:
- truths that are divinely revealed or dogmatic teachings
- truths that are taught infallibly by the Pope or the authentic ordinary Magisterium (also called the ordinary universal Magisterium) or definitive doctrines; and
- truths that are taught fallibly (in a non-definitive way) but authoritatively by the Pope or the authentic ordinary Magisterium or authoritative, non-definitive doctrines.
You must be wondering why truths should even be categorized. Isn’t something either truth or not truth at all? The reason is there are different degrees of acceptance required for each truth — and corresponding punishments for failing to do so:
- dogmatic teachings are to be believed; failing to believe is heresy, which warrants automatic excommunication.
- definitive doctrines are to be held definitively; failing to hold definitively excludes Catholics from full communion with the Church. I wrote about the implications of this in “The Penalty for Pro-RH Catholics.”
- authoritative, non-definitive doctrines are to be accepted at a level that matches the importance of the doctrine; failing to accept warrants punishment of the same level, depending on the importance of the doctrine.
[3] Source of the Satu Mare Chains Church image.
I agree that the “primacy of conscience” is very confusing. To me, it seems like the only option is to follow the Church. Even if one acts on his own conscience, that conscience could end up not reflecting the views of the Church, making the whole decision and idea of the own conscience a contradiction. I can see why some of the priests have concerns regarding the doctrine, but I do not think they need to be very worried if the only real option is to follow the Church. Also, I wonder how this doctrine even formed if it seems to contradictory.
From what I gather, the RCC is simply resorting to a very, very long drawn out series of excuse-making exercises and logical flip-flops to defend what are otherwise indefensible teachings that people can tell are plain wrong by sheer common sense. Their stance on homosexuality and reproductive health are just two.
Why the fuck should I trust a system of beliefs that took more than 30 years to address cases of child abuse, and over 600 years to apologize to Galileo?
The author fundamentally misunderstands Catholicism. The church may teach what it believes, but, as a catholic, you're only required to adhere to Catholic Dogma –because it's the dogma that defines catholicism. If the church teaches against evolution –which it used to– does that make catholics, who believed in evolution during that time, apostates? No. Belief or disbelief in evolution isn't part of Catholic Dogma.
Please try again.
so there are 2 types of church teachings:
1. the fallible "opinions" which Catholics are free to disbelieve without penalty and..
2. the infallible dogmas?
Did I understand your clarifications correctly? How does the ordinary church-going lay-person definitively differentiate between the two? Its not like the CBCP clarifies their missives with exclusion clauses that go "this is not dogma, you are free to take it or leave it"
Yes you got it, actually. Ofcourse, the church *thinks* it's opinions are correct (pretty much like everyone else), and perhaps might try to shove it down peoples throats, but if it isn't about dogma, then those are really just opinions. And opinions can change –many examples of this.
I don't expect the ordinary church person to be able to differentiate between the two. It's even likely that for the most part, they can't. I myself don't even know all the Catholic doctrines about such and such. But the apostles creed pretty much summarizes what's essential.
The apostles creed is very limited. So if you are a serious Catholic, you should start reading up on the three kinds of truths i mentioned in footnote 2. It's all in the onlineVatican archive — in the catechisms and canon law and commentary provided http://www.vatican.va .
Many serious catholics don't know all of catholic doctrine. Most don't even know the difference between catholicism and protestantism. You didn't know this? What matters is what's essential for everyday life. And, I'm still figuring out if I want to be catholic.In the limited that I know, I find protestantism more attractive, honestly
There is no need to be snarky. Of course I know how limited the knowledge of average Catholics are. According to the Church, Catholics have a moral obligation to educate their conscience by studying catechism constantly: what an individual thinks is essential is not enough, because this would entail relativism, something they hate with a passion. I'm glad that you're still considering whether you want to be a Catholic.
Sorry. I didn't mean to be snarky. The church doesn't really have any guidelines as to what one must know, apart from the essentials, so I don't necessarily know what you're talking about.
What do you mean they don't have guidelines? It's all in the Catechism. Do check it out soon: http://www.vatican.va/
Then the catechisms are what's essential. I said they don't have guidelines as to what a catholic must know apart from what's essential. Which is an answer to what you said about serious catholics needing to read up on the three kinds of truths you mentioned in footnote 2.
Although it is true that the Church does not dictate everything that a Catholic believes, this does not really amount to much. First of all, there are too many topics and threads to keep track of — it's just impossible to dictate on everything. Second, they don't have to dictate on everything. The fact that they require belief or "religious submission of will and intellect" with threats of eternal damnation even on a single issue is already enough for them to be tyrants.
In any case, if Miguel thinks my understanding of Catholicism is flawed because I said the Catholic Church requires Catholics to obey the Church PERIOD, I could accommodate his complaint by saying that the Catholic Church requires Catholics to obey the Church ON IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUES.
I thought this was already implied: The Church does not command when it does not require obedience. That is, when it does not care what the Catholic thinks, they don't say much about the issue if they do at all. So in the end, the statement "The Church requires that Catholics obey them" is still an accurate statement.
In any case, if Miguel thinks my understanding of Catholicism is flawed because I said the Catholic Church requires Catholics to obey the Church PERIOD, I could accommodate his complaint by saying that the Catholic Church requires Catholics to obey the Church ON IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUES.
— That's not the same thing now isn't it? Is this "accommodation" a concession that you made a mistake? Well, yes, if it's an "IMPORTANT MORAL ISSUE" then obviously it will somehow, at least ostensibly, interact with certain dogmas.
I thought this was already implied: The Church does not command when it does not require obedience. That is, when it does not care what the Catholic thinks
— The church used to teach against evolution. Certainly it cared what catholics "think". It didn't, however, command anything against it. People were free to go against what the church thought on the issue. So, no, your statement is false on its face.
[edited typo]
As I explained in the following paragraph, it was not a mistake. Saying that the Church requires obedience and that the Church requires obedience on important things is essentially the same thing because the church only issues commands that require obedience on important things.
Saying that the Church requires obedience and that the Church requires obedience on important things is essentially the same thing because the church only issues commands that require obedience on important things.
— No. It's not the same thing, obviously. And the church obviously, as with anything else, will issue commands on what they think is important. The fact is it has issued commands on things that are important, but never required compliance under threat of excommunication or what have you.
One example is it's stance on contraception. Until now the Vatican says contraception is inherently evil, even among married couples. But that's not dogma. That's why we have catholic interest groups still pressuring the vatican to change its stance. As far as I know, they've not been excommunicated yet.
Please read my post filipino-freethinkers-22d5b3.ingress-earth.easywp.com/2011/05/24/the-penalty-for-pro-rh-catholics-exclusion-excommunication-and-eternal-damnation/ for an extensive explanation of how the contraception teaching IS definitive and no dissent is allowed on the matter. Here I also explained that the punishment for dissent is not excommunication directly, but exclusion from receiving communion, which could lead to excommunication.
Also, when the Church taught erroneously about evolution, Catholics still had a moral obligation. Although it was not at the same level as dogmatic or definitive teachings, it falls under the third category at least: authoritative, non-definitive doctrines which are to be accepted at a level that matches the importance of the doctrine; failing to accept warrants punishment of the same level, depending on the importance of the doctrine. Also, the difficulty of accepting the fact of evolution was due to its being in conflict with some teachings that are either dogmatic or definitive.
So in one sense, they were bound because the teaching was in category three. In another sense, they were bound indirectly because they had a duty to believe or hold definitively the doctrines that fall under categories 1 and 2, which conflict with evolution.
Please read this for a summary of the categories: http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/SUMMARY.HTM and this for Pope Benedict's full treatment: http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
There is this video over at Youtube of Dawkins interviewing this Catholic Priest. I think you've seen this. It's title is "root of all evil" I think. The priest categorically states that the he believes and has always been free to believe in evolution, because although the church doesn't agree with it, it isn't part of dogma. The priest I believe used to work for some vatican science department or something like this. I really can't remember the specifics.
Have you even read my footnote? Or any of the links I sent to you? Yes, it is not part of dogma. That is, it is not a dogmatic teaching. But Catholics are also bound to adhere to definitive teachings and non-definitive teachings in various degrees — the punishments are different, but the obligations are equally there. Please read Ratzinger's commentary and you'll understand.
What's the punishment for disagreeing with the church on the issue of, say, the Fatima prophecies? Am I obligated to believe in those prophecies? If I don't, what happens next? If I believe contraception is O.K. within marriage, which I do, what happens to me? How will I be punished? More holy marys? I'm not being snarky, I'm making a point. Reality is, there is no punishment for disobedience of teachings of this sort.
All I'm reading from what you've linked to is that basically, with respect to teachings that are not dogma, the church wants you to follow what they think is true, because they think it's true.
Again, refer to my post on The Penalty for Pro-RH Catholics. There are punishments for not believing, from excommunication to exclusion from communion, both of which could lead to the ultimate punishment of eternal damnation.
Where are the punished Pro-Rh Catholics? Some priests, or even bishops, might have bandied about such threats. But they are without substance, really, and no punishment of that sort has ever, and will ever materialize. So all the indignation really is just a storm in a cup.
//Certainly it cared what catholics "think". It didn't, however, command anything against it. People were free to go against what the church thought on the issue.//
Much in the same way that a man with a gun to my head can tell me that I am free to tell him to fuck off. Except that if I do so, he pulls the trigger. Yup, very free.
You're analogy stands –however crude– when it comes to issues of dogma. I've already given examples above on the commands it does not require people to follow. Obviously it wants people to follow, and tries convincing them. But disobedience isn't being punished by excommunication or what have you.
//But disobedience isn't being punished by excommunication or what have you. //
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?stor…
Annoyingly, you keep showing your failure to understand what I've said while making implicit claims to have refuted it.
Disobedience isn't being punished by excom and what have you? Where are you basing all these assumptions? I highly suggest that you think twice before making such categorical statements. I'd be happy to help educate you, but I do hope you make an effort on your part as well.
I'm basing my assumptions on the many Catholics who are lobbying for a change in the Vatican's stance on contraception and who have yet to be excommunicated. Did you even consider my examples?
Yes. And as I have said, dissenting on contraception does not warrant excommunication but exclusion from full communion with the Church, which has its benefits if you're a Catholic.
Well ofcourse if the church believes something you don't share, then you aren't in "full communion" with it. We aren't in full communion with each other right now, actually.
Catholic scientists who work in the Vatican and believe in evolution must not be in full communion with the pope. That's really all that is.
Please check out footnote 2. I perfectly understand the things a Catholic is supposed to believe, hold definitively, etc. I am aware that other than the 3 truths I mentioned, a Catholic is free to hold whatever belief or opinion. But does this mean that a Catholic in any less bound to obey what the Church says when it comes to important moral issues? No.
a Catholic is free to hold whatever belief or opinion. But does this mean that a Catholic in any less bound to obey what the Church says when it comes to important moral issues? No.
— Like I said, if it's something that goes against dogma, then, no, to be catholic, you can't go against Church's stand on it. You can't be Catholic and, say, disbelieve in the resurrection. Nobody is bound to follow the church on issues not pertaining to dogma. Sure, church thinks it's opinions are correct, so obviously they might express dis satisfaction when adherents go against them. But "bound"? No.
Bound: Being under legal or moral obligation: bound by my promise.
I mean it in this sense.
So yes, Catholics are bound. They are bound by their duty as Catholics. Sure, they can dissent. But because they are duty bound, getting out of the bind has consequences — depending on the classification of belief, it can be as heavy as automatic excommunication. If they are not bound to believe, they can choose not to believe without any consequences.
Bound: Being under legal or moral obligation: bound by my promise. …I mean it in this sense
— Well, not really the first thing that comes to mind with a title that contains "in the prison of the church"
getting out of the bind has consequences — depending on the classification of belief, it can be as heavy as automatic excommunication. If they are not bound to believe, they can choose not to believe without any consequences.
— Like I said, yes, when it comes to issues pertaining to dogma. I already gave you examples where disobedience of certain commands merits no such punishment.
//I already gave you examples where disobedience of certain commands merits no such punishment. // Like raping kids, for example.
Because we all know that has everything to do with the subject.
Like I've already said, using "bound" is common in theological writings, especially in Catholic ones. Sure, the analogy with a prison may not be as common, but I hope you understand why. But the analogy is an apt one. Prisoners are bound by physical chains. Adherents are bound by mental chains.
Lastly, although there are certain things that do not bind Catholics, there are many things that do, and these are what bind them. I picture a prisoner happy that he is free of some shackles only to find out that there are many more still attached to him. Is he any less bound because some shackles are no longer attached?
Is he any less bound because some shackles are no longer attached?
— Yes. He is necessarily "less bound", if that were the case.
In any event, I think you're overstating your case. But that's just me.
Less bound is still bound. I do understand why you're reacting as you do. Most people like to think their actions and beliefs are formed independently. Which is why the Church is not so explicit when it gives obligations — they resort to theological gymnastics as with the primacy of conscience doctrine. I'm sure many people DO form their beliefs independently. But when obligations and threats are part of the equation, the degree of freedom with which to act or belief is put into question.
If there was really such a thing as "primacy of conscience", Abraham wouldn't even think of sacrificing his son Isaac just because a voice told him to 🙂
As I understand it, the "primacy of conscience" is a fail-safe in the system in case the hierarchy itself has been corrupted from within. As we have seen from the news, members of the clergy, even those in the higher echelons, are not immune to human failings – they may have secret personal agendas, biases, or just plain interpreted church teaching wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first or the last time this has happened. As such, progressive-thinking Catholics really shouldn't downplay the value of "primacy of conscience". What if their so-called anti-christ has already infiltrated the Vatican and is mucking around with dogma to sow discord among the faithful?
The fail-safe you are speaking of is dogma, tradition, and magisterium, which will always be there to make the Catholic Church more or less the same for a long time; change happens very, very slowly, if at all. And instead of a fail-safe these act more like an anchor: it keeps the Church chained to a particular way of doing things and makes progress very, very difficult. If you're worried about this anti-Christ infiltrating the Church, I can argue (like many progressive theologians of Catholic and non-Catholic orientation) that it has already happened. In every age the Catholic Church has failed to do good or committed outright evil worthy of such a charge (anti-Christ infiltration). In fact, they've been literally called anti-Christ early on for various reasons.
In my own opinion, primacy of conscience and the context surrounding it is just one of those theological gymnastics performed to reconcile inherently conflicting doctrines, not unlike reconciling free will with obligation to obey under threat of damnation.
Lovely article. Any religious organization will either say free will is a curse or you are blessed with free will. But bottom line is they all say "do what I say or be condemned to the fires of hell"
You should do an article on Mental Reservation next. The faithful are given a free pass to lie as long as it protects the interests of the church. Heavily used to coverup sex abuse and spreading contraceptive/aids facts- facts according to church.
Thanks, Basti, I'll look into that 🙂
Here’s some source material for you.
most of us should be familiar with this by now.
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2011/07/20/bishop-ma…
looking forward to it.
an article to get you started http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/…
But kudos to the clarity in which you tried to explain the doctrine.
Thanks 🙂
"Because Catholics are proud and even honored to be called believers. What do you call someone who is bound to obey?" To address this point, no one is forced (ergo bound to obey) to be part of the Church. One can freely leave & be disassociated with the Church. The problem is some Catholics tend to be picky in the doctrines that they follow – they follow only the ones convenient for them. Cafeteria Catholics as Dan Brown's character would put it.
The bigger problem in the PH is, Catholicism have been overly and deeply embedded in the culture and thinking of the people. Which as a Catholic, I think is wrong. Because for me, reason and faith really do not contradict. However, most Filipino Catholics have blind faith – which is very sad.
Would that it were true that people were free to leave and be disassociated from the Church. Like many others who were baptized as children unable to consent, I am an atheist, but I am still on the records of the Catholic Church as a Catholic. The Church uses this convenient scam to lobby the government to bend to their will, using their grossly exaggerated numbers to somehow flex their political muscles.
Even under its own teachings, I am still a Catholic even though I deny all of the Church's tenets and I deny the Holy Spirit (an unforgivable sin, according to the scriptures). I am only a Catholic who is not in "full communion" with the Church. All people baptized in the Church remain Catholics in the eyes of the Church even after death. As a Catholic not in full communion and in grave mortal sin for not believing in the existence of God, I am consigned to hell. That is not free association under any definition.
Not true. If you repudiate Catholic teaching –which, surely, you do– then you become an apostate or a heretic. Those words sound negative, yes, but they only mean you're a dissenter. Ofcourse, you can retract your repudiation and be welcomed back into the fold.
Obviously, nobody is forcing the label "catholic" on you. Saying someone is a catholic who is "not in full communion with the church" is just a kind way (kind for catholics, obviously) of saying you're not a catholic.
"Saying someone is a catholic who is "not in full communion with the church" is just a kind way (kind for catholics, obviously) of saying you're not a catholic."
What are you basing this on? Please read up on catechism and canon law. Officially, it's as simple as this: once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
Are you sure?
Yes.
'Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become "unbaptized," although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin.'
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/k…
Because everyone is a sinner. You don't disassociate yourself from catholicism by sinning. Read what you just linked to in it's proper context.
What are you basing this on? Please read up on catechism and canon law. Officially, it's as simple as this: once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
— So a Catholic who converts to Islam is still a Catholic, and the church will recognize him as such? No. An official repudiation of essential Catholic beliefs is all that is needed. By your logic, all catholics who converted to Islam are still catholics. That's ridiculous.
Again, ridiculous as it may sound, it's what *they* believe and teach. You're assuming that just because it's ridiculous they could not possibly believe it. Please start studying these things before making categorical claims. Officially, the Catholic in your example is an apostate Catholic. Interestingly, protestants are schismatic Catholics, although out of ecumenism and respect they are not referred to as such anymore. Like I said earlier, there are heretical and excommunicated Catholics, too. To the Church, once baptized, always baptized. Ridiculous? I agree. But it's what they believe.
And an atheist who used to be a catholic is an 'ex-catholic' because it's not like people can go back in the past and change what they've done. Once baptized, always baptized because there's no time machine to go back and stop yourself from getting baptized. That's really all you're saying. If you're thinking that catholics who have now officially joined islam are still recognized as catholics –because that's initially what you were saying– then the burden is on you to show that to be true. You're creating this strawman that there's no way out. Imprisoned. Bound. "Oh no you're trapped now, oh no! You'll always be a catholic and there's no escape!", when most of the time, it's really just because catholicism wants this sense that a lot of things are forgivable.
First of all, I don't agree with the Church. I believe that every person has a right to call himself whatever he pleases. What I'm talking about here is the perspective of the Church, and here it's clear: once a Catholic, always a Catholic — there is no escape. For them, this is not just some theoretical or nominal thing — baptism has a real effect of making a person Catholic — not only in name but in being — for all time.
What the church thinks of baptism and it's spiritual effects that you say they say lasts for all time, is irrelevant to what I'm saying about the falsity of your statement "once a catholic, always a catholic", because it's quite manifestly obvious that ex-catholics who are now muslims are not in any way, shape or form, counted by the the church as catholics.
My gut tells me that the church thinks the effect of baptism is just like some physical effect, like a scar perhaps, that stays with you "for all time". Be that as it may, that's irrelevant because baptism doesn't "bind" you to anything you don't want to be bound to.
As I explained in the post, they are not bound to obey — at least not explicitly. Yes, everyone else is free to leave. But according to the Church, Catholics are bound to believe — which as I've shown also means they're ultimately bound to obey.
And as Garrick said, Catholics aren't even free to disassociate now. They removed the process for defection. And according to Canon law, once baptized Catholic, always a Catholic.
Garrick, I'm pretty sure you're more than "not in full communion." We belong to the excommunicated because of our heresy (disbelief) and apostasy (leaving the faith), but interestingly, according to official Church teaching, we're Catholics nonetheless.
Finally, reason and faith can't help but contradict. Because Catholics have a duty to give religious submission of will and intellect (reason) when it comes to belief. This requirement wouldn't make sense in any other context
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/c…
In short, even if we left, the RCC still gets to parade our names around when they claim that they have numbers on their side.
Unless you are excommunicated or leave the church by actus formalis defectionis ab Ecclesia catholica (a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church). Good thing I was baptized as a Protestant. 🙂
Again, even excommunicated Catholics are still considered by the Church as Catholic — they're just called excommunicated Catholics. And although defecting removes you from the baptismal registry (you are also still considered Catholic) they have removed this procedure some time ago.
Yes, because it's impossible for them to actually know exactly who "left". Blame that on your parents then, who had you baptized without your consent.
//Yes, because it's impossible for them to actually know exactly who "left".//
Actually, it is http://www.secularism.org.uk/official-debaptism.h…
Really? So it's possible for them to know *exactly* who left? Under all circumstances? Because that would be odd.
But according to the Church, Catholics are bound to believe.
— Ofcourse. Else, why call yourself catholic then, if you don't "believe" in catholicism?
which as I've shown also means they're ultimately bound to obey.
— As a catholic, you're not "bound" to believe, but you really ought to believe if you want to call yourself such. If I were a Naturalist, I'm not bound to believe in naturalism, I *ought* to believe in it if I'm going to be consistent in my worldview. So, there's no binding here. And believing something doesn't entail compliance with it. I can certainly disobey traffic laws, even if I believed they were for the good of all. The word 'bound' is being used as a strawman here.
Finally, reason and faith can't help but contradict. Because Catholics have a duty to give religious submission of will and intellect (reason) when it comes to belief. This requirement wouldn't make sense in any other context
— Unless, ofcourse, if one believes there is reason for faith — which is the position of the theist.
"As a catholic, you're not "bound" to believe, but you really ought to believe if you want to call yourself such."
Again, what are you basin this on? John Paul II said in his Veritatis Splendor that "the Church’s Magisterium also teaches the faithful specific particular precepts and requires that they consider them in conscience as morally binding." I can give you more quotations from encyclicals, canon law, and other commentaries that show how a Catholic is bound to believe, but I hope JPII's is enough.
"Unless, ofcourse, if one believes there is reason for faith — which is the position of the theist."
Now you are equivocating. What I meant is that rationality (reason) and faith as epistemological tools are essentially conflicting. Just because someone has a reason to hold something (say, faith) does not mean the reason is a rational one.
I can give you more quotations from encyclicals, canon law, and other commentaries that show how a Catholic is bound to believe, but I hope JPII's is enough.
You're missing the point. One is "bound" to believe God doesn't exist if he's an atheist. There is no binding, if you will, it's just that certain conclusions follow from certain beliefs. If you want to be a catholic, then you have to believe in catholicism and the dogmas that define it. If the church teaches something that's not part of dogma –say, the fatima prophecies– then disbelieving it would be all well and fine. That's the point.
Now you are equivocating. What I meant is that rationality (reason) and faith as epistemological tools are essentially conflicting. Just because someone has a reason to hold something (say, faith) does not mean the reason is a rational one.
— No I'm not. And no they aren't.
I was using faith to a mean a belief in God. But, you may have used it to mean belief without evidence.
An atheist is not bound to believe God doesn't exist: there is no obligation involved here. Which is why hearing that statement is jarring: What binds the atheist to doubt? Himself? If it is a choice, there is no binding. Catholics, on the other hand, have a moral obligation and are thus bound to believe in God. Sure, they can believe in God freely. But that does not change the fact that the obligation is there — they are bound nonetheless.
On the equivocation. If you mean to say that having a religion and being a rational person are compatible, then I agree with you. So it was my use of faith that you misunderstood as having a religion instead of belief without evidence. In any case, faith is such a problematic word. I'll write about it one of these days 🙂
An atheist is not bound to believe God doesn't exist: there is no obligation involved here.
— That's kinda the point, right? There is no obligation, it's just something that logically follows from his worldview, which is what I've been saying.
Catholics, on the other hand, have a moral obligation and are thus bound to believe in God.
— That's because an atheist catholic would be an oxymoron.
Sure, they can believe in God freely. But that does not change the fact that the obligation is there — they are bound nonetheless.
— No they aren't. Unless your using the word "bound" loosely, but I don't think you are judging from the title of your article (prison). That's like saying theists are bound to believe in God. No. It just so happens theists cannot not believe in God (sorry for the double negative.)
Now you are using theist instead of Catholic. Sure, a theist does not necessarily have an obligation to believe in God. A theist may believe that a god exists out of no obligation. But a Catholic does have a moral obligation to believe in God, regardless of whether he chooses to do so out of his own volition or his obligation as a Catholic. I'm not using the word bound loosely. This wording is commonly used by Popes and in canon law, and I'm only using it as loosely as they are. Again, you are projecting your own thoughts and beliefs onto these priests and popes instead of studying what they're actually saying. Please don't be limited to what you think they teach and actually start studying it from now on.
Now you are using theist instead of Catholic. ]
— To make a point. And it was you who used the example 'catholics are bound to believe god exists' –that's theism.
A theist may believe that a god exists out of no obligation. But a Catholic does have a moral obligation to believe in God, regardless of whether he chooses to do so out of his own volition or his obligation as a Catholic.
Wrong! A theist is only as bound to believe a God exists as Catholics are. The minute you don't believe God exists –actually, the second– you cease being a theist –and, obviously, if a catholic, you cease being that too. Ofcourse, you don't magically become a non-catholic because it's not as if the church can keep track of what people think.
It's like you're saying that a Christian is bound to believe in the resurrection. While that's true in the loose sense of the word, it isn't true in the sense that you seem to be using the word –to mean imprisoned, chained, required, and so forth. It just so happens that the resurrection is the main compnent of Christian belief, so the moment you stop believing is the moment you cease to be a Christian. It's as simple as that. You're membership, for pretty obvious reasons, does not magically disappear, yes, if that's what you mean.
"To make a point. And it was you who used the example 'catholics are bound to believe god exists' –that's theism."
What can't you understand here? Catholics are bound to be theists, yes. But theists are not bound to be Catholics.
"Wrong! A theist is only as bound to believe a God exists as Catholics are. The minute you don't believe God exists –actually, the second– you cease being a theist –and, obviously, if a catholic, you cease being that too. Ofcourse, you don't magically become a non-catholic because it's not as if the church can keep track of what people think."
This is not true as I've explained, because not all theists are Catholics, and Catholics do have moral obligations of belief. (Have you finally read the links I sent you earlier?) A Catholic who ceases to believe in God may lose his theist status but in the eyes of the Church he does not lose Catholic status. In addition to this, in the eyes of the Church, that Catholic becomes a heretic and is automatically excommunicated, but still remains a Catholic. To sum up, the Church thinks it's possible to err as a Catholic, but it's not possible to be unbaptized — to be unCatholic.
"It's like you're saying that a Christian is bound to believe in the resurrection. While that's true in the loose sense of the word, it isn't true in the sense that you seem to be using the word –to mean imprisoned, chained, required, and so forth. It just so happens that the resurrection is the main compnent of Christian belief, so the moment you stop believing is the moment you cease to be a Christian. It's as simple as that. You're membership, for pretty obvious reasons, does not magically disappear, yes, if that's what you mean."
Like I said earlier, I mean bound in the dictionary sense of having a legal or moral obligation — in this sense moral. And Catholics are bound to believe the resurrection — they have a moral obligation to believe this. When they refuse to believe, the Church teaches that there are consequences — automatic excommunication, etc.
What can't you understand here? Catholics are bound to be theists, yes. But theists are not bound to be Catholics.
— Maybe we should overlook this for now. You clearly missed the point. You were saying I was changing from catholicism to theism, and I was explaining I was doing so to make a point.
A Catholic who ceases to believe in God may lose his theist status but in the eyes of the Church he does not lose Catholic status.
— Only insofar as the church has no idea about it. Catholicism is a subset of Christianity. You cannot be a Catholic who's a non-christian, you cannot be a Christian without believing in God, which makes it follow that you cannot be a catholic without believing in God.
To sum up, the Church thinks it's possible to err as a Catholic, but it's not possible to be unbaptized — to be unCatholic.
— Insofar as time machines don't exist for someone to go back in time and unbaptize himself, yes. But it's possible to be uncatholic; simply repudiate it's core doctrines, or convert to Islam. Yes, there is consideration given to flock members who stray away, by not completely expelling them from the church, but that's a good thing, actually –insofar as forgiveness is always a good thing. It's not the shackle you seem to want people to think it is.
And Catholics are bound to believe the resurrection — they have a moral obligation to believe this.
— Well if you don't mean it in the sense I was thinking a moment ago, then I don't think I disagree.
/If you want to be a catholic, then you have to believe in catholicism and the dogmas that define it. If the church teaches something that's not part of dogma –say, the fatima prophecies– then disbelieving it would be all well and fine. That's the point. //
The problem is that not even the Vatican's scholars will be in consensus on how to interpret its own theology. Do you have any idea how many times I've been called "un-Catholic" by some Opus Dei-educated folks when I tried to reason with them with theology as taught by my Jesuit professors?
The problem is that not even the Vatican's scholars will be in consensus on how to interpret its own theology.
— Hmm.. interesting point. I don't think I necessarily disagree with you here. But I do think that for the most part they got things figured out. I do know of some stuff though that aren't.
Again, another assumption that is based on nothing. They got things figured out for the most part? Which theologians have you been reading lately? There has been a huge debate since Vatican II on several important issues, and the only way to think that they got things figured out for the most part is to have a selective bias for those who already agree on these issues. Of course, if you make a statement "conservative Catholics who are in consensus have already figured things out for the most part" you can hardly be wrong. But talk to or read the works of any progressive theologian and you can't possibly think "they've figured things out for the most part."
I was talking about Catholic dogma. yes, they've got that figured out for the most part.