How can you call yourself Catholic?
How can you call yourself Catholic when you're so ready to ignore teachings that you don't agree with? How can you call yourself Catholic when you embrace and participate in activities that destroy the soul or go against Catholic teachings? How can you call yourself Catholic when you're so willing to declare everything you don't agree with wrong, or misguided, or sexist? How can you call yourself Catholic when you don't practice the faith? How can you call yourself Catholic when you don't believe in or listen to the church leaders? How can you call yourself Catholic?
posted by empeterson @ 2:16 PM
18 Comments:
At 7:34 PM ,
Matthew B. Novak said...
Well, we actually have a moral obligation to work to improve Catholic teaching. The Church could be wrong on stuff, but we're still called to respect that teaching. But there's a difference between respecting and following blindly. In fact, we're not supposed to follow blindly. And if we honestly disagree with something because our faith has led us to disagree - faith as opposed to things like desire or political viewpoints - then disagreement is perfectly ok. So long as our disagreement is born of a legitimate practice of faith, and our efforts to change the Church are channeled through prayer and dialogue, we can still call ourselves Catholic and disagree.
At 9:08 PM ,
empeterson said...
ok, but what exactly makes someone Catholic? And don't we have an obligation or something to at least practice the faith and follow the moral guidelines if we choose to be Catholic? I don't think you can choose part of the faith, that would no longer be Catholicism, but rather, your own reliogion. If you are going to choose Catholicism, don't ignore teachings just because it feels good to have sex with mulitple people outside of wedlock, or because you want to be able to decide when you have kids, and you think the church leaders don't understand women and birth control is freedom of choice and all that. If you are going to call yourself Catholic, you need to practice the faith as defined by the 2000 years of tradition we have had. Yes, question, and grow, but believe and follow too. There's something to be said for choosing to follow all of the church teachings knowinglyand willingly because you have found it to be true, but there's also something to be said for sometimes just believing things because you need too, not because your personal feelings, politics, or feminist yearnings.
At 11:25 AM ,
Kendrick Novak said...
How do you call yourself catholic when you want girls to be priest when the church has always said no?
I think it is called change and improvement, like Martn Luther helped change the church
At 4:54 PM ,
empeterson said...
having sex outside of marriage, and using birth control is not change and improvement.
Women as priests, that's something I have no answer for.
At 5:01 PM ,
Alan said...
wouldn't that all be based on perspective?
At 6:57 PM ,
empeterson said...
well sure, feminist applaud birth control for the freedom of choice over their reproductive systems, and other people applaud it because it allows them to have sex without the consequences, and to not have to have multiple kids or whatever. they may see that as progress. I don't, and the Catholic church sure as heck doesn't. It's only progress to the people who are more "free" to do whatever they want. Perspective in this sense is crap.
At 11:01 PM ,
Matthew B. Novak said...
I think the difference is whether or not you disagree with the teaching for faith reasons or for personal application reasons. If you disagree with no female priests because you want there to be female priests, that's not legit. If you disagree with female priests because you have a deeply-held, theologically supported faith belief, that's legit.
Same thing goes for birth control, etc.
We need to be careful though, because everybody falls short of living the faith. We all sin. So you can be Catholic and sin. You can be Catholic and use birth control, etc. That's no more hypocritical than being Catholic and gossiping or cursing. So I'd be careful about calling people "not-Catholic", so long as they participate in the Sacraments, I don't think it's for us to judge whether they are or are not truly Catholic.
At 11:24 AM ,
empeterson said...
that's a good point, the Sacrament thing. I never though about the 7 sacraments as what makes someone Catholic, and I don't think that's all of what makes someone Catholic, but it is a large part. Thanks Matt.
At 12:01 PM ,
Alan said...
as far as mass attendance goes if i remember right the minimum is twice a year.
At 1:23 PM ,
empeterson said...
I'm not really talking about mass attendence, although the requirement might be sortof lame, especially if say, you have a church on campus that you can go to every week.
Matt, I was also thinking, what if the church teachings themselves are not always theological-is it then ok to disagree with the teachings for other reasons? Take the female priest thing-it may not be the most deeply-rooted Catholic tradition to have only males as priests. In fact, I don't think it's that old of a tradition, at least not 2000 years old. It's a slightly more recent (1000 years?) tradition, which may have in fact been set as a precedent for non-theological reasons (I'm not very clear on these reasons, I'll consult my Cathecism, although that in itself might make the reasons sound more theological than they actually are). What my point is, is that if women as priests isn't a theological matter, but a patriarchical matter or matter of convienence or whatever reason it was, then I think it is more ok to disagree. This apparantly goes against what I actually blogged about, but I think that's ok. I don't actually know about women as priests, but look for a post on that in the near future I think!
At 3:49 PM ,
Matthew B. Novak said...
I think that the Church has some theological reasons for their position. But if something is completely non-theological then maybe it's ok to disagree for non-theological reasons. I don't know about that one.
BTW, I don't think "patriarchy" is a reason per se. I might put up a post on this on my blog soon.
At 7:45 AM ,
Anonymous said...
"i am Catholic"
see that's how someone calls themselves Catholics who ignores what the church teaches
At 8:48 AM ,
empeterson said...
Wait, you're going to do a post on patriarchy in the church or women as priests? Because I'm pretty sure I said "look for a post on this sometime soon" so that would be completely rude to steal my post. Also, since you're a big ole' law student, it would probably be better written, which is annoying. So don't be a jerk.
At 12:58 PM ,
Eric Michael Peterson said...
I don’t think you can make a faith based argument for something that is motivated out of selfish gains... birth control... who does that help? yourself, it is a selfish gain, it says I can have sex when I want with who I want and not need care about the consequences. some people might not see it that way, but it is the truth. you can have sex without using birth control and not get pregnant, you can enjoy a good and health sex life within NFP, but to say the church is wrong about birth control seems a crock on almost any level... look at the motivating reasons why anyone would be apposed to it... what do you find? a selfish gain... wanting to have sex with no consequence.
I think there are certain things that you must agree on and practice in order to call yourself anything. say goes for Catholic. if you believe in the 7 sacraments, but toss out all tradition and history... I don’t know if you catholic anymore regardless of whether you call yourself it or not.
At 1:40 PM ,
Matthew B. Novak said...
And I think it's incredibly judgmental to take that position. Why should we even be concerned with whether or not someone else is actually Catholic or just calls themselves Catholic? Our duty is simply to live and share our faith and its teachings with everyone - be they Catholic, "Catholic", Protestant, non-Christian, etc. That's our duty. It is NOT our duty to judge.
At 6:14 PM ,
Eric Michael Peterson said...
Point of clarification... I do not really care too much if a person is Catholic or not, nor do I think it is necessary for salvation. Along that line I do not think that any of the reasons I listed for not being Catholic are necessarily grounds for damnation... I really do not know what damns someone per say. I think the point I wish to make is that the person should not necessarily make claim to being Catholic if they do not fulfill the criteria set forth for it. Liken it to something else... I call myself a doctor, could I be? Yes. am I? Well I call myself that. Do I fulfill the criteria for being one? No, does that mean what I am or what I do is any less meaningful? No. I think it is the same for Catholic, Lutheran, Jew, Muslim... if you do not meet the criteria for said title, your not it, although it does not mean you cant call yourself it, but that does not make you a bad person. Also, what criteria you need to fulfill in order to be anything is debatable, and like you said matt, if it is honestly contested by faith, maybe they still meet the criteria; however, in some things, I find it hard to make a faith based argument for why it is ok to do/ not do something (i.e. birth control).
At 6:21 PM ,
Matthew B. Novak said...
But just because you are unfamiliar with the faith based reasons doesn't mean they aren't there. Moreover, faith is an immensely personal subject, and frequently hard to explain. So someone could have completely faith-based reasons for a disagreement with church teaching and we might never know it.
In this way too matters of faith are completely different from what makes a person something objective like a doctor. There's an easy way to answer that question: did you graduate from a medical school and recieve a license from the state? Faith isn't so easy. The only objective criteria we've got are really the Sacraments. So I say, if the take the Sacraments, beyond that, it is not ours to judge.
And I realize it's not an issue of damnation or salvation. But our call to not judge goes far beyond determining whether or not we think someone is or is not going to Heaven. Our call to not judge is complete. We cannot serve as judge, because that is God's role. Our justice is different from God's Justice. And I for one dare not step on the Lord's toes. I guess you're more bold than I am.
At 10:37 PM ,
empeterson said...
mom does. or at least she made a deal with God-she'll have as many kids as he wants as long as there are no mulitples. just thought I'd share that, since she mentioned it to me once. And I'm almost positive she was serious. She's a very brave woman.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home