To think some Catholics don't understand their own faith

[zombiegames]

Okay I admit a thread about a couple of other threads.

I was brought up Catholic, but am not one now - but I do understand how the way you are brought up as a Catholic gets under your skin. But it does make me angry that other people here who say they are catholics, appear to have so little understanding of their own faith.

The pope is not just someone whose opinion you can dismiss if you are a catholic. He is christs representative on earth and he is infallible - that means he can't be wrong. This is an absolute key part of the one true faith. It is not a side belief that can be conveniently ignored.

So when the pope says for example that gay marriage or using condoms is wrong, that is a belief of the catholic faith and can't just be dismissed. If you say this is wrong, you are saying that the pope is not infallible and thus you are questioning an absolute key part of catholicism.

Why does this anger me? Because a lot of people who are not and have never been catholics don't really understand catholicism as can be seen on here when non catholic parents who send dcs to catholic schools froth on here about what their dcs are being taught. Posters who post about being catholic and non homophobic, are misrepresenting catholicism to those who don't understand it. If the pope says something, then that is part of the catholic faith and is what catholics should believe.

And sorry I probably ABU as I know this is a bit of a rant, even though it is true.

YABU - if you think the Pope is always officially infallible you have a gap in your education.

Well tell me when the pope wasn't then? It is a central part of catholicism.

But, as I understand it, after years of catholic convent education - he's not infallible unless he declares himself to be so. In effect, before he says something, he needs to declare that it falls under the doctrine.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

Most people don't see things in black and white the way you do. There are plenty of grey areas. Most Catholics I know are intelligent human beings and can work things out for themselves. They are also not homophobic and use contraception.

I think it's not always a case of not understanding the catholic faith, I am a practising catholic but I don't take everything the catholic church says literally, for example I use contraception and have no problem with the concept of gay marriage/civil partnership. I don't think it's a good thing for anyone, of any religion, to blindly accept everything the leaders of said religion say without thinking about their own point of view on the matter, if I was to not use contraception I would either have to abstain from sex which would damage my marriage or have lots of children that I can't afford and provide for properly making me a bad parent, I understand why the catholic church believes what it does but I choose not to obey that particular part of the faith and I am quite happy to justify myself to God if I ever make it to the pearly gates.

I tend to agree in a general way - if you want to think for yourself and form your own unmediated relationship with the teachings of Christ then Catholicism is not the ideal religion for you. That is after all, what the Reformation was all about. Thousands died for that principle.

However on the specifics the teachings of the Pope on contraception are not infallible - infallibility is reserved for particular ex cathedra statements. Most of the infallible pronouncements are quite obscure, but Wikipedia will enlighten you.

Even though you are technically correct that the pope is "infallible", god's representative etc, in reality plenty of Catholics disagree with certain aspects of catholicism - my Dh and Pils included. And even some priests. I don't know exactly how they reconcile this with their faith (haven't asked) but certainly the Catholics I know (not many as I'm atheist) feel the church needs to modernise on certain aspects of its teachings - they do not blindly accept what the pope says even if technically they should.

But this is my point! The catholic church si black and white. And it is because I see grey areas that I am not a catholic.

Viola - As I understand it, not every utterance of the pope's is infallible that is true e.g. it is going to rain today, taht would be silly. But in matters of spiritual dogma, it is.

You're right. Some ex Catholics do not understand the church.

Look, you have a point if you are talking about the teaching of the church. Is it an inconsistent position to be a contraceptive using, same sex marriage supporting catholic who had sex outside marriage? Of course! Doesn't mean that there aren't lots of us in the church, and we aren't that way because we don't realise the church's position.

There are limits to Papal infallibility. If you are not aware of those, perhaps that is in itself a failure to understand?

Viola - Sorry and when he is speaking in his role as head of the church rather than a private theologian. Read some catholic websites and this is made it clear. And it is set out clearly by Vatican Council.

Apologies, but have cut and pasted from the official catholic encyclopedia an explanation of papal infallibility.

"Explanation of papal infallibility

The Vatican Council has defined as "a divinely revealed dogma" that "the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra ? that is, when in the exercise of his office as pastor and teacher of all Christians he defines, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole Church ? is, by reason of the Divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer wished His Church to be endowed in defining doctrines of faith and morals; and consequently that such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of their own nature (ex sese) and not by reason of the Church's consent" (Densinger no. 1839 ? old no. 1680). For the correct understanding of this definition it is to be noted that:
?what is claimed for the pope is infallibility merely, not impeccability or inspiration (see above under I).
?the infallibility claimed for the pope is the same in its nature, scope, and extent as that which the Church as a whole possesses; his ex cathedra teaching does not have to be ratified by the Church's in order to be infallible.
?infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:◦The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
◦Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible (see below, IV).
◦Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense (see DEFINITION). These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
◦Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter's successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching."

Ah crosd-posted. Have now read about papal infallibility - I had wrongly thought it applied to everything the pope said but that makes a lot more sense

I think a lot of so-called Catholics understand the church's stance very well, but choose to ignore it.

I left the RC church in my teenage years, when the scales fell from my eyes,

I have given my reasons to friends - I am pro-choice, I do not believe homosexuality is wrong, I find the patriarchal and hierarchical structure of the church totally at odds with my feminism and socialist politics etc - and lots of them agree with me, but say half-baked things like 'Well, not all Catholics believe homosexuality is a sin' and 'Its an old fashioned institution, it will catch up eventually'

I find it mildly depressing. So much denial and willing to turn a blind eye.

When the Pope came to the UK I felt ill at all the fawning and all the ickle childwin snuggling up to him. Vile man.

A priest has told me he thinks Catholic priests should be allowed to marry and he is supportive of gay relationships. He wasn't questioning his faith in any way, just some of the (man-made) rules attached to it.

But Catholicism is a religion, not a faith.

I have faith. I am not a catholic, because I don't believe in the rules of that particular religion.

Why is he Catholic, then? Surely he cold go to CofE or a more liberal church?

Lollopbybear: the consideration of which of two courses of action is the lesser evil has always been permissible. It is essentially what allows Catholics to eg go to war (prevention of greater evil).

In the example you cite, adoption scenario A is considered better than being left in care. It does not attempt to 'rank' other adoption scenarios A, B, C, D etc.

It is regarded by catholics as "the one true faith".

I can sort of see what the OP means. I would think for a priest who has faith in God as a general concept, but does not agree with a great deal of quite significant 'man made' rules around their particular religion, it would make more sense to be part of a different 'type' of religion.

I'm not religious though, so maybe I don't get some of the social elements that align you to one faith rather than another.......

My post was too slow!

I think the main gripe I have about the catholic church is the inconsistency and bigotry. I cannot believe in a faith where teaching and reality are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

YABU

A person's religion is between them and their maker and for them to decide how to approach it. Catholicism has many many elements, papal infallibility isn't the only one. And like a previous poster, I was always taught to question at all three of the Catholic schools I went to.

And I very much look forward to the 'how can you call yourself Jewish when you don't keep kosher" thread.

Haven't popes only spoken ex cathedra twice in history? I don't think any have made ex cathedra pronouncements about condoms or gay sex.