Calling Oneself Catholic While Rejecting Church Teaching

[Maggyie]

P, nuanced is putting it lightly! Intellectual somersaults in mid air required. Anyway I hope at this point in the thread you've got an answer to your original question about why dissenters still call themselves Catholic. It's because even the excommunicated ones ARE Catholic, according to the Church.

[HisChildForever]

Based on how long this thread is, it seems that there's no easy or straight-forward answer to this question. However, were all to agree on an answer, I guess I'd curious to know--then what? I mean, what's the purpose of this discussion, the aim everyone is reaching for? Does it help us evangelize better or something?

[Perigrina]

Wikipedia usually gets it's Catholic information straight from the Catholic Encylopedia, so I had no problems understanding it, but it does often get things wrong, so perhaps this article explains it even better since it is about a book written by a canon lawyer. I am only putting an extract of it the interview here because it is a long one, but there is a link to the article of the interview, and one can always buy his book I suppose as well. Disclaimer: I have highlighted certain parts of the interview, but I have not read the book yet.

 

The topic of excommunication is obviously so complex and so misunderstood that Ed Peters had to write a whole book about it! :)

 

Ed Peters is pretty much an expert on canon law and I love his blog  http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/

 

 

as well as another one about canon law by Cathy Caridi  http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/

 

I am not a Church Scholar or canon lawyer, so this information is basic enough for me, and there is also a whole section on the Catholic Encyclopedia about excommunication.

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia is too old to have accurate information on anything affected by Canon Law. The latest Code of Canon Law came out in 1983 and has many changes since the previous one in 1917.  I like Ed Peters and I trust your judgment that your other recommendation is good too.

 

I have a problem, in principle, with making deductions about theology based on Canon Law.  It is just too easy to get things wrong.  They look at questions from very different perspectives.

 

However, in my post to which you respond, I am the one who got things wrong.  When I went back to check the exact wording of Mystici Corporis I saw that it was compatible with the Wikipedia quote and that excommunication currently does not exclude people from membership in the Church. So I made a major mistake.  Thank you very much for correcting me. 

[Perigrina]

P, nuanced is putting it lightly! Intellectual somersaults in mid air required. Anyway I hope at this point in the thread you've got an answer to your original question about why dissenters still call themselves Catholic. It's because even the excommunicated ones ARE Catholic, according to the Church.

 

It is not that simple.  In a way, dissenters are Catholic.  In another way, they are not Catholic.  And both of these ways are according to the Church.

 

But this discussion was very helpful for me.  I was able to work through the ideas and to see people's emotional responses to them.  I needed both of those pieces.  

 

When I frame dissent as "Those people are not really Catholic.  Why are they saying they are?"  I am automatically creating barriers and bad feeling. I need to frame it another way:

 

Dissent is very wrong and harmful, but does not destroy the indelible mark of Baptism. When dissenters call themselves Catholic, this could be a sign of the grace of Baptism working in their lives.  It is a reminder to hope and pray for them to accept correct doctrine and to return to full communion with the Church. 

[Perigrina]

Based on how long this thread is, it seems that there's no easy or straight-forward answer to this question. However, were all to agree on an answer, I guess I'd curious to know--then what? I mean, what's the purpose of this discussion, the aim everyone is reaching for? Does it help us evangelize better or something?

 

It helped me to come up with a more positive way to understand dissenters calling themselves Catholic.  I hope that this will allow me to communicate better with dissenters.

[Anastasia13]

It helped me to come up with a more positive way to understand dissenters calling themselves Catholic.  I hope that this will allow me to communicate better with dissenters.

 

Canonically Catholic, non-identifying

 

Canonically and culturally Catholic, sort of ish

 

Theologically Catholic RepreSENTINg :rap: Preach it!

 

?

[Anastasia13]

Canonically Catholic, non-identifying

 

Canonically and culturally Catholic, sort of ish

 

Theologically Catholic RepreSENTINg :rap: Preach it!

 

?

 

And that was post 666 for what it's worth.

[Socrates]

 I assent that sex has a nature, a meaning and a telos. I merely disagree what this essence of sexuality is. 

 

What makes you so certain that you know better than Christ's Church regarding what the God-give meaning and purpose of sex is?

 

 

I am always welcoming of prayers. Yet, I reject your the Church's black and white thinking. 

 

Fixed.

 

The concept of the Magisterium's infallibility on moral teachings is not my own invention.

[Socrates]

What does Catholic mean to you?

 

"Catholic" means whatever you want it mean!  (Or nothing at all, if that's what you prefer.)

 

The only requirement is that you love and don't judge anything or anybody (except, of course, for those awful, horrible, mean, mean, floppy-floopin' judgmental conservative orthodox  Catholics who agree with all of Church moral teaching, whom Jesus would really hate if He were still alive today!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(There, you bleedin' hearts happy?)

[Nunsense]

"Catholic" means whatever you want it mean!  (Or nothing at all, if that's what you prefer.)

 

The only requirement is that you love and don't judge anything or anybody (except, of course, for those awful, horrible, mean, mean, floppy-floopin' judgmental conservative orthodox  Catholics who agree with all of Church moral teaching, whom Jesus would really hate if He were still alive today!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

(There, you bleedin' hearts happy?)

 

 

Somebody miss his first cup of coffee this morning and it's affected his whole day? :console:

[CatherineM]

Somebody miss his first cup of coffee this morning and it's affected his whole day? :console:

He's got little ones so probably hasn't had an undisturbed night's sleep in a while.

[Lilllabettt]

P, nuanced is putting it lightly! Intellectual somersaults in mid air required. Anyway I hope at this point in the thread you've got an answer to your original question about why dissenters still call themselves Catholic. It's because even the excommunicated ones ARE Catholic, according to the Church.

 

 

RIIIIIIGHT because of all the Church teachings among which they choose to believe, these folks just happen to choose to believe that one esoteric bit of canon law that says it is impossible to ever leave the Church. 

 

Ahh makes perfect sense. The teachings about sex and reproduction - that's the picky stuff thats just pulled out of a hat and "made up."  The one where they say you can never release yourself from Church membership - that's the one that's to be taken as divine truth.

 

lol. how convenient for it to work out that way.

 

if your idea actually represents the position of dissenters who want to call themselves Catholic, then the irony is indeed ridiculous. 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Lilllabettt

[Fidei Defensor]

I'm retiring from this thread.

 

Quite honestly, it should be enough to say "if you believe what the Church teaches, you're Catholic. If not, you aren't."

[mortify ii]

P, nuanced is putting it lightly! Intellectual somersaults in mid air required. Anyway I hope at this point in the thread you've got an answer to your original question about why dissenters still call themselves Catholic. It's because even the excommunicated ones ARE Catholic, according to the Church.

 

Martin Luther was excommunicated was he Catholic as well?

[mortify ii]

The 1983 revision of the Code of Canon Law removed this statement from the account of the effects of excommunication in the Catholic Church.^%5B4%5D Thus in current Catholic canon law, excommunicated Catholics - unless they cease for some other reason to belong to the Church - are still Catholics and remain bound by obligations such as attending Mass, even though they are barred from receiving the Eucharist and from taking an active part in the liturgy (reading, bringing the offerings, etc.).

 

 

I think this applies more to divorced Catholics and those who had abortions rather than people who are formal heretics. 

[Perigrina]

Dissenters have grounds to claim that they are ontologically and juridically Catholic.  I can tell them that their dissent is wrong and try to explain why Catholic teaching is right and why they should accept it, but I cannot tell them that they are not Catholic.  Their duty is to accept Church teaching.  Mine, I think, is to apply this passage from the Catechism:

 

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

 

 

The most favourable way that I can interpret the actions of dissenters is to say that, in a way, they are right about being Catholic.  

 

Edited June 29, 2014 by Perigrina

[mortify ii]

 

Dissenters have grounds to claim that they are ontologically and juridically Catholic.  I can tell them that their dissent is wrong and try to explain why Catholic teaching is right and why they should accept it, but I cannot tell them that they are not Catholic.  Their duty is to accept Church teaching.  Mine, I think, is to apply this passage from the Catechism:

 

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

The most favourable way that I can interpret the actions of dissenters is to say that, in a way, they are right about being Catholic.  

 

Cool, Ill pass that info on to the Sedevacantists

[Perigrina]

Cool, Ill pass that info on to the Sedevacantists

 

Sedevacantists are Catholic in the same ways that dissenters are, as far as I can tell.

[Lilllabettt]

Dissenters have grounds to claim that they are ontologically and juridically Catholic.  I can tell them that their dissent is wrong and try to explain why Catholic teaching is right and why they should accept it, but I cannot tell them that they are not Catholic.  Their duty is to accept Church teaching.  Mine, I think, is to apply this passage from the Catechism:

 

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

 

 

The most favourable way that I can interpret the actions of dissenters is to say that, in a way, they are right about being Catholic.  

 

 

well favorable interpretation in this context does not mean accepting the other person's idea as correct -- in whole or in part or "in a way." By favorable interpretation they mean giving the person the benefit of the doubt as far as motive and intention are concerned. 

 

A favorable view of the actions of dissenters is to say, for example, that they don't mean to be dishonest when they claim to others that they are Catholic. They don't intend to deceive. 

 

A favorable view does not mean accepting that they are right to claim to others that they are Catholic.

 

See the difference?

 

Whatever their motives, by doing so they make themselves a laughingstock. 

The absurdity of a dissenter from a religion's teaching making a technical appeal to that teaching is ridiculous. It's beneath their dignity, whatever their religion might actually be, if they happen to actually have one.

 

.

[Maggyie]

RIIIIIIGHT because of all the Church teachings among which they choose to believe, these folks just happen to choose to believe that one esoteric bit of canon law that says it is impossible to ever leave the Church.

Ahh makes perfect sense. The teachings about sex and reproduction - that's the picky stuff thats just pulled out of a hat and "made up." The one where they say you can never release yourself from Church membership - that's the one that's to be taken as divine truth.

lol. how convenient for it to work out that way.

if your idea actually represents the position of dissenters who want to call themselves Catholic, then the irony is indeed ridiculous.

But you see, that's the most tasty irony of all. Because if you don't agree with the church's laws on this matter then you are ALSO technically a dissenter! Ding ding ding! Mmmmm. Burnt is yummeh.