The deacon's sermon is interesting but simplistic. I suppose in an ideal world, we would agree on everything and there would be no conflict. But life doesn't work like that, either in the secular or religious sphere. Even if you accepted all the church's laws and teachings, that doesn't mean you won't argue with other Catholics or even priests. The problem is that people are different, each individual being unique. Even the most stupid person also has freedom and a conscience, if church teaching is to be believed. A person can, by virtue of their freedom, always reject a teaching. You can only make someone truely obedient by taking away their free will, but then you would just have a robot.
I suppose the problem is there is really no way to test something subjective such as obedience. Even someone who may outwardly conform to laws and teachings may in secret be a serious sinner (i.e. they have an affair). The scandals involving many people in positions of trust (even priests) as well as the terrible example of the evil system of Nazis, who justified their acts on 'following orders', should make everyone aware to the dangers of blindly following authority.
Obviously we can't totally reject authority out of hand otherwise there would be anarchy in society. To learn we have to accept that we can be taught. To have certain freedoms we need the rule of law. To have things done efficiently there needs to be a division of tasks and work according to talent and ability. To be well led we need to have people with certain skills and abilities. On the other hand if we just have absolutism we just have tyranny, which just oppresses people and stops them from doing worthwhile things in life, and can even lead to evil - 'I was just following orders' as Eichmann claimed in Jerusalem.
I think whether you are Catholic or not you have to confront the question of power and authority. Protestant and Orthodox churches also have their teachings and leadership structures, and to dissent from teachings or to openly criticise leadership no doubt also leads to ecclesial penalties in those churches, just as criticising your superior risks you losing your job. But I think we always need to recognise our freedom and responsibility to conscience, even if doing so may lead us to having to leave our church. Freedom is supposed to be our outstanding gift from God and one of our 'marks' of being made in the divine image, at least so Thomas Aquinas and John Damascene say in the CCC. Freedom can be abused, but so can authority. There needs to be a healthy relationship between the two in terms of the Christian and their relationship to their church authority. At its best, leadership should guide, inspire, minister, console, and help lead to a growth of holiness and faith and flourishing, but if abused, it can lead to the opposite; tyranny, repression, and a crushing of a person's spirit and even being led into evil. Obedience should be faithful and in harmony with your deepest convictions and also with legitimate authority, but it should not be at the cost of your personal integrity and intellect.
I suppose for some if they can't agree they feel the only option is to leave the church. I have thought this a few times, but I find myself returning. Others don't return. Whatever the deacon may say or whatever category they may apply, I have found the answer can only be found in conscience, whether to agree or not, and also whether or not to remain in the church or leave the fold.
... an excellent and thoughtful post; permit me to respond to just a few things vis-a-vis the opening post.
Originally Posted by greg300
The deacon's sermon is interesting but simplistic. I suppose in an ideal world, we would agree on everything and there would be no conflict.
As the Deacon would point out, a Catholic is not one who chooses to agree with everything (that would more likely be a Protestant Hiding in the Church), but one who docilicly accepts what he/she is told by the Church. Apples and oranges.
You can only make someone truely obedient by taking away their free will, but then you would just have a robot.
Well, I can't comment on that, but again, the Deacon would direct your attention to the foundational insistence of the Church in the Catechism #87. And I think he'd comment that one who places himself ABOVE or EQUAL to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church by using HIS/HER "free will" and decisions is - to be blunt - not a Catholic at all. The Deacon would point out it is the "problem" in contemporary Catholicism - it is increasingly not embraced by Catholics but by Cafeteria Catholics and even more by Protestants Hiding in the Church.
I have found the answer can only be found in conscience, whether to agree or not, and also whether or not to remain in the church or leave the fold.
I agree with you, but then I left The Catholic Church - IN PART because I increasingly felt dishonest.
I feel the Deacon's point important and probably foundational. Without it, the whole foundation of Catholicism collaspes and the RCC becomes just one more teacher which we should consider - and perhaps with which we will both agree and disagree (neither entirely). We might associate because IN OUR OPINION, this is best (thus making one both a Cafeteria "Catholic" AND a "Protestant Hiding in the Church" - and not a Catholic at all).
Thank you!
Pax
- Josiah
.
__________________ .
My thoughts on ChristianForums: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
POLITICAL resolution: Power, Authority, Individualism, infallible/unaccountable, lording it over others, lecture.
Check out my "testimony" and "best posts" thread here: To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Fundamentally, every Catholic decides to be Catholic because it is the best in their opinion. Even a Catholic who accepts everything with docility at some point made a decision to obey because they concluded that in their opinion that was the best thing to do.
I am not sure that I am a Cafeteria Catholic...I am against abortion but I am realistic and prefer it to be legal and become rare and unusual then for it to ever be illegal. I am Pro-Life which also means anti-death penalty and anti war...
I personally would use NFP but think it should be up to others to decide what is right for them and their family. I think far too much time is spent judging people on their sex lives...In the UK gays and lesbians have civil unions and I think that it is fair...
I do love RCC though and I attend mass several times a week, I believe much of it's doctrine. I don't think that this Deacon would consider me to be Catholic nor the Priests of my parish, who are Jesuit.
Linear Mode
