Orthopraxis vs. Orthodoxy

[Good Friday]

A simple question: If a gay Catholic does not believe Church teaching regarding homosexuality but chooses to live the life that the Church calls him to out of sheer obedience alone, is that sufficient? Must he [i]believe[/i], or must he only [i]do[/i]?

I think my problem is not so much that I can't [i]do[/i] it, as much as I can't [i]believe[/i] it. If I can quietly (that is, privately) disagree while still obeying, would that be workable?

[cmotherofpirl]

I think its a starting point.
I have come to accept Church teachings by obeying them before I could understand or agree with them.
I didn't think God was asking for my opinon just my obedience.
The more I obeyed them the more I understood them and the easier they were to practice.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

I believe it IS sufficient to disagree privately (without causing scandal) and still obey. The obeying is the key.

I know people who completely disagree with many of our Church leaders (bishops, cardinals, the Pope himself) and they are still worthy of being considered excellent Catholics (and people) because they are obedient to the Magistrium, the Pope, their cardinals, their bishops and their priests.

Disagreement does not automatically disqualify.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
1/22 - St. Vincent

[quote]"It is useless to play off orthopraxis against orthodoxy: Christianity is inseparably both."
[i]-Pope John Paul II,[/i]Catechesi Tradendae[i] 22[/i].[/quote]

[Good Friday]

Great. So the Pope would have me do . . . what, exactly? Get a lobotomy? I mean really, how does the Pope's quote help me?

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 22 2005, 02:10 PM'] Great. So the Pope would have me do . . . what, exactly? Get a lobotomy? I mean really, how does the Pope's quote help me? [/quote]
Start with obeying the Church. Remember, prior to the 14th century or so nobody really cared in Catholicism about intent vs action.

[hyperdulia again]

Orthopraxis seems more noble to me than being Orthodox in belief and living like a pagan. I think that might be what His Holiness was saying.

[Q the Ninja]

Actually, by doing the action you're talking about, you would be in the right.

[Guest Aluigi]

[i]The Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew, Chapter XXI, Verses xxviii-xxxi[/i]
But what think you? A certain man had two sons: and coming to the first, he said: Son, go work to day in my vineyard. And he answering, said: I will not. But afterwards, being moved with repentance, he went. And coming to the other, he said in like manner. And he answering said: I go, Sir. And he went not. Which of the two did the father’s will? They say to him: [b]The first[/b]. Jesus saith to them: Amen I say to you that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you [you- the pharisees who were like the second].

Edited January 22, 2005 by Aluigi

[Good Friday]

So the consensus (with the exception of Pio Nono) seems to be that I could, in fact, practice the teaching of the Church without actually agreeing with it, and still be "okay." Of course I realize that none of you think this is the [b]ideal[/b] situation, but human beings rarely work in ideals. Perhaps I should believe and do, but I don't; the best I can maybe do is to do what the Church asks, even if I don't believe in the credibility of what she's asking.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I [b]am[/b] going to do this, only that I'm considering it.

[Guest Aluigi]

it's definitely better than believing and not practicing. cmom's right about it being a good first step, ideally it wouldn't be the only step but you're right, human beings don't work in ideals.

btw, I found your latest blog entry quite well-written and interesting. I don't think anyone on PhatMass said that after theosis it would turn hetero (i could have missed that part, i don't know). the neither marry nor be married thing makes more sense to me, and we refer to Joseph as Mary's spouse simply because relationships from earth still exist in heaven, they're simply not the same. Joseph and Mary are not living in a married state, but they would still be in relation to each other be called husband and wife in the same way a father and son are still father and son in heaven even though the father is no longer teaching and raising the son or any of that.

Edited January 23, 2005 by Aluigi

[spathariossa]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='Jan 22 2005, 09:19 PM'] So the consensus (with the exception of Pio Nono) seems to be that I could, in fact, practice the teaching of the Church without actually agreeing with it, and still be "okay." Of course I realize that none of you think this is the [b]ideal[/b] situation, but human beings rarely work in ideals. Perhaps I should believe and do, but I don't; the best I can maybe do is to do what the Church asks, even if I don't believe in the credibility of what she's asking.

Mind you, I'm not saying that I [b]am[/b] going to do this, only that I'm considering it. [/quote]
Like I said, the concept of intent vs action is relatively new within the Church - only 500-700 years old. And as Aluigi pointed out, obedience is what Jesus wanted. I myself am not sure have the time that prayer works or that God even exists. But I know to keep at it despite my doubts, and most of the time I don't find myself doubting anymore.

[Pio Nono]

JMJ
1/23 - Third Sunday

Don't blame me - it's what the Holy Father asserts. I simply give a message that's not my own (hate the game, not the player).

[jezic]

[quote]hate the game, not the player[/quote]

And i say to you love your enemy ....

[Apotheoun]

No one may withhold assent to a doctrine taught as definitive by either the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium, nor may he dissent from those things proposed by the Authentic Magisterium, rather, he must give a submission of mind and will to those teachings, even if they are not proposed as definitive.

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably bound together.

God bless,
Todd

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aluigi' date='Jan 22 2005, 07:25 PM'] [. . .]

btw, I found your latest blog entry quite well-written and interesting.  I don't think anyone on PhatMass said that after theosis it would turn hetero (i could have missed that part, i don't know).  the neither marry nor be married thing makes more sense to me, and we refer to Joseph as Mary's spouse simply because relationships from earth still exist in heaven, they're simply not the same.  Joseph and Mary are not living in a married state, but they would still be in relation to each other be called husband and wife in the same way a father and son are still father and son in heaven even though the father is no longer teaching and raising the son or any of that. [/quote]
What I have said is that the homosexual inclination is not an ontological reality; instead, it is a defect of the will, i.e., it is an objective disorder. Thus, no one is ontologically a "homosexual" in this life, or in the age to come.

God bless,
Todd

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Apotheoun']No one may withhold assent to a doctrine taught as definitive by either the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium, nor may he dissent from those things proposed by the Authentic Magisterium, rather, he must give a submission of mind and will to those teachings, even if they are not proposed as definitive.

Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably bound together.[/quote]
And what if one can't give one's assent?

[hyperdulia again]

I'm interested in this, because I have dificulty *believing* most of the Church's teaching in the area of sexual ethics, I was told that as long as I gave my obedience, I was fine.

[spathariossa]

I would argue that if one is doing what the Church says, even if you don't fully agree with it, you are giving implied assent or approval to the Church teaching. As a medieval catholic I'm not into the whole intent vs. action thing.

[Apotheoun]

If a man refuses to give his assent to a dogma that has been definitively taught by the Magisterium, either Ordinary or Extraordinary, as a truth to be believed with divine and catholic faith, he ". . . falls under the censure of heresy." [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 5] If he denies a doctrine that has been proclaimed as [i]definitive tenenda[/i] by either the Ordinary or the Extraordinary Magisterium, he ". . . would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church." [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 6] Finally, if a man denies a doctrine taught or a norm that has been established by the Authentic Magisterium, his failure to give his assent would be ". . . qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore 'tuto doceri non potest.'" [CDF [u]Official Doctrinal Commentary on the Professio Fidei[/u], no. 10] Orthodoxy and orthopraxy, as I said before, are inseparably bound together. A man's assent to the various dogmatic and doctrinal propositions taught by the Church's Magisterium must inform and motivate his actions. Thus, to withhold assent from something that the Church has proclaimed to be believed as divinely revealed, or something that she has taught as necessarily to be held, separates a man from communion with the Catholic Church.

God bless,
Todd