Questions From Guests

[Rhamiel]

the past few months, with everyone getting ready for Christmas, we have had more non-Catholic visitors who are not as familiar with OBOB or with Catholicism in general come here.

Many times they participate in threads and have questions that are really thoughtful but take us far off the original topic of the OP in those threads

So I made this thread to help new posters or just anyone who has questions

Happy New Year and God Bless

 

[Rhamiel]

@TheBibleIsTruth I am sorry some of your comments were deleted, feel free to ask your questions here

oh I remember one of the things you had problems with, this thread is in OBOB and Catholic teachings can not be preached against
if I go to the Baptist subforum I can not preach against Baptist beliefs, or if I go to to the Eastern Orthodox subforum I can not preach against Eastern Orthodox beliefs
just part of how this site is set up, but you are free to ask questions

 

[Rhamiel]

Bump

 

[badatusernames]

Why do so many Catholics assume that if you have legitimate disagreements with the Catholic Church that you either simply received bad information or do not understand something? Is it really not possible in the mind of some Catholics that they might be wrong about something or have gone in error? I don't mean "they think they're right" cause everyone does.

A bit of a background: I am a former Inquirer who was kicked out of RCIA for what the priest said for "not understanding my place as a RCIA student" In other words, I asked too many questions our leader did not like me asking. As a result, I became not necessarily anti-Catholic, but more off-put and weary/skeptical of the Catholic Church. However, any time I ever get into a discussion with a Catholic and present a sound counterargument or counterpoint, they almost always respond by saying I either don't understand the RCC teaching or received bad information.

That also reminds me...

How common really is it for someone to get kicked out of RCIA?

 

[badatusernames]

[Staff edit].

I was not being rude, and don't think I was being combative. I was trying to understand. I remember the first thing that kind of set it off was when they talked about the nature of God and they described it in such a way that came across like they were saying that they were defining God as a person in a general limiting way. I then asked just the same "Isn't that defining God as a person? What about his transcendental nature?" and they responded by saying "Who are you to argue against the likes of Augustine, Acquinis?" to which I replied "I'm not. I'm trying to understanding." They replied "You don't need to understand, you just need to believe." I just stayed quiet the rest of class that day. It was in a later session that it exploded.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

[Staff edit].

Did they introduce you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[badatusernames]

Did they introduce you to the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Yes. They gave us all a copy the first week, and usually wanted us to read part of it as homework/prep work for the next session. I may still have mine around somewhere.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I went through RCIA in 1992-1993. And I don't remember us having the CCC. There probably wasn't one there since it had just been published in 1992. But my heart and mind was already set on becoming Catholic. In fact, my mind was made up about it in mid-summer of 1992, but I had to wait for RCIA to start in September. And then I had to wait for Easter. It taught me a lesson in humility and patience.

 

[Rhamiel]

I do not personally know you and I do not know the parish you went to, so I can not really comment on the more personal aspects of your post
sorry, my advice would be to read up on Catholicism from the great Doctors of the Church and to find a priest/parish that is closer to fitting with your own personality, far too many times it is simply a clash of personalities, I am NOT saying that was the case here, as I do not know you or the others involved, just a statement of what sometimes happens

Why do so many Catholics assume that if you have legitimate disagreements with the Catholic Church that you either simply received bad information or do not understand something?

they almost always respond by saying I either don't understand the RCC teaching or received bad information.

a lot of it is based out of misplaced charity that really comes off as infantilizing and disrespectful

basically there is the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside The Church" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
this can be mitigated by "invincible ignorance"
basically it means that if you are ignorant about the Church, through no fault of your own, you will be forgiven for not being a member of the Church
in modern cultures, especially nations that are mostly Protestant, this leads to a false assumption that EVERYONE is invincibly ignorant and thus saved
it keeps Catholics lazy, we do not have to go and try and save people if they are already saved
so any disagreement is not seen as you rejecting the True Faith, no, it is just you are "ignorant of the truth"
I think that is very disrespectful to people who have true differences with us

to be fair, there is a lot of misinformation out there, so while you might know a lot, most Catholics have dealt with a number of people who are tragically misinformed
but once you show yourself to be knowledgeable, you should be treated with respect that you know what you are talking about

 

[badatusernames]

[Staff edit].

After the class I talked about above, a couple of weeks later we talked about The Bible, and during Mass the following Sunday we were taken out after the homily to discuss the liturgy of the word, the homily, and how it all connected. Our teacher asked the group of us what we all thought of the passages and homily, and a few gave their opinion, and he responded something affirming, but when I responded he then said "that's wrong", and then spent about five minutes explaining why I was wrong. He did not touch on anyone else's interpretation and then went into teaching us the correct one and how it related to the homily that morning. I asked him very politely later about that because it seemed like an attacked and he said "Well...(there was a clear hesitation) I was just using it as an example cause you were last." It seemed plausible, but the whole demeanor about it made me skeptical about why it was wrong.

Two weeks later we touch on Mass and how the faithful are obligated to attend on Sundays and other select Holy Days with the exception of serious reasons or such, and deliberately not attending is committing a mortal sin. He further explained that what is meant by that basically if you can physically go unless the safety of yourself or others (sickness or young infants) are at stake, you are obligated to go. They then asked for people to come up with various scenarios like children's sports games, vacations, etc. and our teacher would kind of go through and say if it was deliberate or not. I raised my hand and said
"Isn't 'deliberately failing' something only the person involved can judge? Even then, isn't that bit vague of a description for something that is claimed to be mortal sin? What if you judge wrong?" He replied, "That's why you need to listen to and trust your priest. They're your spiritual guide, and are there for you."
I said "That doesn't really answer my question or reassure me very much. What if I don't think I am deliberately failing to attend Mass and I am?"
"Well, if your priest says it isn't deliberate than you have nothing to worry about."
"Ok. I still this is a bit vague for such a supposed serious sin. Can you explain why it's worded so vaguely if it's not a matter of personal judgment and conscience?"
"You just have to trust your priest and the Church to guide you. Don't worry about the grave sin part just yet, we'll get there."

I stopped and a couple weeks later we talked about the formation of conscience and natural law, and the following conversation ensured....
"If Natural Law is universal and in all the hearts of men, why do different cultures have different values and morals?"
"Sin blocks some from understanding or makes them reject and so while it always is there on some level, it is not always lived out until they are shown how they are in error"
"Ok, but what about the cases in history where a society actually had some better morals before they were exposed to Western European civilization, like with some Native American and Asian cultures."
"That has never happened. It only looks better to those who reject God's law, and is a tool of Satan to make it look appeasing. God's way is always better."
"How do you know God's way is your way? That's a pretty ethnocentric view of a universal law."
"This is not the teachings of our culture, this is teachings of the Catholic Church."

Again, I didn't really think it answered my question. I am positive at this point is when he went to the priest at this point because for the next several weeks whenever I had a question, he just responded "no" "I don't know" or "Trust the church" These were the questions...
"How can God condemn a sick individual of suicide since essentially their brain is not working right at that point and so they aren't really aware of what their doing. In fact, having intervened in suicidal individuals many of them genuinely believe their doing others a favor."
"Wasn't Paul just expressing his personal opinion when he talked about how he wished everyone would remain single?"
"Doesn't lust even in scripture mean covet?"(in reference to how any kind of sex outside of for procreation is lustful) "Isn't that kind of Gnostic?"
"How can you honestly continue to call homosexuality "objectively disordered" when science has shown otherwise? Do you have your own scientific evidence that shows this?"

It was after that class about morality towards others as the following day I got a call from the priest to meet with him. He asked I joined RCIA, and I told him that I joined because my roommate had taken to Mass several times and I was feeling led by God to join. He asked why I was "challenging my teacher" I said that I was trying to learn and understand, and that often times I felt like my teacher did not really explain things very well. He then dropped the same "It's not necessarily your place as an Inquirer to understand. It's your place to believe and follow, understanding can come in time."

I took that to mean that they did not want me asking question, or I was asking questions that they did not want me asking. I told my roommate later who thought I was joking until I didn't go to Mass the following Sunday. After which, the priest told my roommate to be "cautious around me", to which only really raised suspicion in him about the whole thing. I haven't stepped foot in a Catholic Church since and my own independent research and reading of the catechism has made completely off-put by it. Until someone can show me how my concerns aren't legitimate without dismissing them because I'm Protestant, I'm gong to be off-put.

 

[badatusernames]

I do not personally know you and I do not know the parish you went to, so I can not really comment on the more personal aspects of your post
sorry, my advice would be to read up on Catholicism from the great Doctors of the Church and to find a priest/parish that is closer to fitting with your own personality, far too many times it is simply a clash of personalities, I am NOT saying that was the case here, as I do not know you or the others involved, just a statement of what sometimes happens

I talked about what happened in the post above. It wasn't so much a class in personalities, but more I think a very authoritarian priest and someone who probably shouldn't have been teaching an RCIA class.

a lot of it is based out of misplaced charity that really comes off as infantilizing and disrespectful

basically there is the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside The Church" (Extra ecclesiam nulla salus)
this can be mitigated by "invincible ignorance"
basically it means that if you are ignorant about the Church, through no fault of your own, you will be forgiven for not being a member of the Church
in modern cultures, especially nations that are mostly Protestant, this leads to a false assumption that EVERYONE is invincibly ignorant and thus saved
it keeps Catholics lazy, we do not have to go and try and save people if they are already saved
so any disagreement is not seen as you rejecting the True Faith, no, it is just you are "ignorant of the truth"
I think that is very disrespectful to people who have true differences with us

to be fair, there is a lot of misinformation out there, so while you might know a lot, most Catholics have dealt with a number of people who are tragically misinformed
but once you show yourself to be knowledgeable, you should be treated with respect that you know what you are talking about

I know there's a lot of misinformation out there. I'm from a somewhat Evangelical background and I've heard some people say some very ignorant things about Catholicism. That makes sense that many of you guys are aware of the level of ignorance is out there and think that's part of what is going on with it.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

"How can you honestly continue to call homosexuality "objectively disordered" when science has shown otherwise? Do you have your own scientific evidence that shows this?"

Science has not shown otherwise. Homosexuality is in fact objectively disordered. The anus is not designed for sex. The scientific community's decision to stop calling homosexuality a disorder was based on political pressure and homosexuals taking over leadership in the APA. And the Kinsey data was flawed since he got his data from prison inmates. So it wasn't based on real science.

Here are a couple of books I recommend for you to read on that topic:

Homosexuality and American Psychiatry - The Politics of Diagnosis
by Ronald Bayer
Princeton University Press
ISBN 0-691-02837-0

Making Gay Okay - How Rationalizing Homosexual Behavior Is Changing Everything
by Robert R. Reilly
Ignatius Press
ISBN 978-1-58617-833-8

And I recommend studying Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

Here are a couple of books on that:

Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body
by John Paul II (Author),‎ Michael Waldstein (Translator)
Pauline Books & Media
ISBN 978-0819874214

Theology of the Body in One Hour
by Jason Evert
Totus Tuus Press
ISBN 978-1944578848

 

[badatusernames]

Science has not shown otherwise. Homosexuality is in fact objectively disordered. The anus is not designed for sex. The scientific community's decision to stop calling homosexuality a disorder was based on political pressure and homosexuals taking over leadership in the APA. And the Kinsey data was flawed since he got his data from prison inmates. So it wasn't based on real science.

I don't generally debate with people that go to conspiracy theories for explanations of things that happened they don't like or doesn't fit into their worldview, especially in regards to organizations in which I know a lot about like my own field's organizational and governing body.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

I don't generally debate with people that go to conspiracy theories for explanations of things that happened they don't like or doesn't fit into their worldview, especially in regards to organizations in which I know a lot about like my own field's organizational and governing body.

If you aren't going to listen to us why did you come here?

 

[badatusernames]

If you aren't going to listen to us why did you come here?

I am listening, but unless you have valid and reliable scientific data to show your claim that homosexuality is objectively disordered, reliable historic data to show your claim that the vote to change it in 1973 and actual change in the 80s was due to political pressure and gays in leadership, or credentials to show that you are credible to make such claims on the matter, I am not going to find you what you have to say credible on this matter. I am a 4th year clinical psychology grad student, I've taken an entire semester class about human sexuality and have worked in clinical with LGBT individuals, and plan on doing that for my career. Unless you have either set of data or credentials, let's move on please.

No, a political analysis from 1981, a book from a writer with no expertise or experience in psychology, and theologians are not credible sources on the matter. I do appreciate you giving a more thorough answer than my RCIA teacher, who I think said "Trust the Church."

 

[badatusernames]

I guess my next question is this...

Why is the catechism and cannon law so legalistic, especially considering that Jesus, Paul, and an overarching theme in all of scripture speaks out against this kind of legalism that turns God's law from being about the heart and intent to just following a list of rules? Christ said that is yoke is easy and his burden is light, but I don't see an easy yoke and light burden in Catholicism, but a long list of rules one must follow.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Why do so many Catholics assume that if you have legitimate disagreements with the Catholic Church that you either simply received bad information or do not understand something? Is it really not possible in the mind of some Catholics that they might be wrong about something or have gone in error? I don't mean "they think they're right" cause everyone does.

A bit of a background: I am a former Inquirer who was kicked out of RCIA for what the priest said for "not understanding my place as a RCIA student" In other words, I asked too many questions our leader did not like me asking. As a result, I became not necessarily anti-Catholic, but more off-put and weary/skeptical of the Catholic Church. However, any time I ever get into a discussion with a Catholic and present a sound counterargument or counterpoint, they almost always respond by saying I either don't understand the RCC teaching or received bad information.

That also reminds me...

How common really is it for someone to get kicked out of RCIA?

I suspect it is uncommon to be kicked out of RCIA. I've never heard of that happening, but I can imagine it. Most people really want to be there and it should be for them. Now someone with many more questions, or a particular style that does not fit in with the group might need individual attention.

Sorry for your experience. Sounds like they should have found someone to work with you individually and they failed you. Hard to know because I wasn't there, but that is what I might have tried for you.

I've met many former Catholics and many of them fall into a particular pattern. They were not terribly well raised as Catholics, either by the fault of parents or church, they went away to college and fell away from the faith. Then they ran into some evangelicals or fundamentalists. They discovered for the first time what they should have discovered as Catholics years before: a friendship with Jesus. They blame the Catholic Church for this failure, and to a degree maybe they are correct. They are fed a diet of anti-Catholicism and they eat that up along with everything else. What you end up with is someone who never knew much about the Catholic faith, even if they went to Catholic schools, because it never sank in. They think they know more than they know, but most of what they 'know' is anti-Catholic talking points.

You can tell because what they claim to know is usually lame, or blatantly false, and/or just the standard talking points. They are often bitter anti-Catholics themselves. It's obvious they haven't ever had an adult Christian faith as a Catholic.

This sort isn't everybody, of course. Mileage varies. I can be happy for this sort, that they finally did find Jesus. Better late than never. But they can be so confused about what they said they once believed. I facepalm a lot when I encounter this sort of person.

It's the evangelicals and fundamentalists who sometimes have their talking points all ready to go, but those talking points lack depth. Take for example the talking point about 'call no man father'. It's easy to whip out and deploy. But the answer, that takes a chapter of a book to fully answer. And the answer is sound, Biblical, historical, and satisfying. But that same person who launched the 'call no man father' attack will be unfazed by it, replying that the Bible sez ....

It's that sort of person who seems uneducated and truly uneducatable. Not everyone is like this. But there are plenty of them. They stick to their talking points, unwilling to learn a thing, attacking, hoping that by doing so they will save some of us from the Beast.

Catholicism is not an easy to understand religion. It doesn't reduce nicely to a few sentences. Every little thing has a book or three behind it. The Scriptures can be complex, and what was built from those Scriptures can be even more complex. Even the Catechism, designed to be simple, is deeper than it is simple. We have a partially systematic theology, which means that it cannot be treated as totally systematic (annoying those with systematic minds), and also if one does not engage in any systematic thinking it doesn't make sense either. Some other Christian groups can boil it all down to 'Bible sez' or a short list of rules and be done with it. We have long explanations, because we have thought about this stuff for many centuries, and that sounds all wrong when compared to 'Bible sez'.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I was not being rude, and don't think I was being combative. I was trying to understand. I remember the first thing that kind of set it off was when they talked about the nature of God and they described it in such a way that came across like they were saying that they were defining God as a person in a general limiting way. I then asked just the same "Isn't that defining God as a person? What about his transcendental nature?" and they responded by saying "Who are you to argue against the likes of Augustine, Acquinis?" to which I replied "I'm not. I'm trying to understanding." They replied "You don't need to understand, you just need to believe." I just stayed quiet the rest of class that day. It was in a later session that it exploded.

Consider that the presenter was probably trying to the best of his or her ability and may have actually explained a particular point very badly. People presenting in an RCIA class should have had some training but are not, in themselves infallible. They may think they are representing the thought of Augustine or Aquinas capably, but may have missed the point. I sat in on one RCIA class at my old parish. The presenter was trying to make a complex point and mangled the Greek and Hebrew basis for his point. I tried for an immediate correction and it didn't go well. Then I dropped it, waited until the class was over, and explained it all very carefully to the presenter. They aren't infallible. Well, neither am I.

 

[chevyontheriver]

After the class I talked about above, a couple of weeks later we talked about The Bible, and during Mass the following Sunday we were taken out after the homily to discuss the liturgy of the word, the homily, and how it all connected. Our teacher asked the group of us what we all thought of the passages and homily, and a few gave their opinion, and he responded something affirming, but when I responded he then said "that's wrong", and then spent about five minutes explaining why I was wrong. He did not touch on anyone else's interpretation and then went into teaching us the correct one and how it related to the homily that morning. I asked him very politely later about that because it seemed like an attacked and he said "Well...(there was a clear hesitation) I was just using it as an example cause you were last." It seemed plausible, but the whole demeanor about it made me skeptical about why it was wrong.

Two weeks later we touch on Mass and how the faithful are obligated to attend on Sundays and other select Holy Days with the exception of serious reasons or such, and deliberately not attending is committing a mortal sin. He further explained that what is meant by that basically if you can physically go unless the safety of yourself or others (sickness or young infants) are at stake, you are obligated to go. They then asked for people to come up with various scenarios like children's sports games, vacations, etc. and our teacher would kind of go through and say if it was deliberate or not. I raised my hand and said
"Isn't 'deliberately failing' something only the person involved can judge? Even then, isn't that bit vague of a description for something that is claimed to be mortal sin? What if you judge wrong?" He replied, "That's why you need to listen to and trust your priest. They're your spiritual guide, and are there for you."
I said "That doesn't really answer my question or reassure me very much. What if I don't think I am deliberately failing to attend Mass and I am?"
"Well, if your priest says it isn't deliberate than you have nothing to worry about."
"Ok. I still this is a bit vague for such a supposed serious sin. Can you explain why it's worded so vaguely if it's not a matter of personal judgment and conscience?"
"You just have to trust your priest and the Church to guide you. Don't worry about the grave sin part just yet, we'll get there."

I stopped and a couple weeks later we talked about the formation of conscience and natural law, and the following conversation ensured....
"If Natural Law is universal and in all the hearts of men, why do different cultures have different values and morals?"
"Sin blocks some from understanding or makes them reject and so while it always is there on some level, it is not always lived out until they are shown how they are in error"
"Ok, but what about the cases in history where a society actually had some better morals before they were exposed to Western European civilization, like with some Native American and Asian cultures."
"That has never happened. It only looks better to those who reject God's law, and is a tool of Satan to make it look appeasing. God's way is always better."
"How do you know God's way is your way? That's a pretty ethnocentric view of a universal law."
"This is not the teachings of our culture, this is teachings of the Catholic Church."

Again, I didn't really think it answered my question. I am positive at this point is when he went to the priest at this point because for the next several weeks whenever I had a question, he just responded "no" "I don't know" or "Trust the church" These were the questions...
"How can God condemn a sick individual of suicide since essentially their brain is not working right at that point and so they aren't really aware of what their doing. In fact, having intervened in suicidal individuals many of them genuinely believe their doing others a favor."
"Wasn't Paul just expressing his personal opinion when he talked about how he wished everyone would remain single?"
"Doesn't lust even in scripture mean covet?"(in reference to how any kind of sex outside of for procreation is lustful) "Isn't that kind of Gnostic?"
"How can you honestly continue to call homosexuality "objectively disordered" when science has shown otherwise? Do you have your own scientific evidence that shows this?"

It was after that class about morality towards others as the following day I got a call from the priest to meet with him. He asked I joined RCIA, and I told him that I joined because my roommate had taken to Mass several times and I was feeling led by God to join. He asked why I was "challenging my teacher" I said that I was trying to learn and understand, and that often times I felt like my teacher did not really explain things very well. He then dropped the same "It's not necessarily your place as an Inquirer to understand. It's your place to believe and follow, understanding can come in time."

I took that to mean that they did not want me asking question, or I was asking questions that they did not want me asking. I told my roommate later who thought I was joking until I didn't go to Mass the following Sunday. After which, the priest told my roommate to be "cautious around me", to which only really raised suspicion in him about the whole thing. I haven't stepped foot in a Catholic Church since and my own independent research and reading of the catechism has made completely off-put by it. Until someone can show me how my concerns aren't legitimate without dismissing them because I'm Protestant, I'm gong to be off-put.

Some of your questions were pretty good ones. They may not have been apropos of an RCIA class with a bunch of people in them, but it would have been good if they found ways to get you real answers outside of class. I'm trying to imagine myself in the place of the RCIA presenter, and I think I would have been intimidated to see you with a raised hand. I would hope to handle it better, not to speak beyond my own understanding, and to get you answers after and outside of the class.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I guess my next question is this...

Why is the catechism and cannon law so legalistic, especially considering that Jesus, Paul, and an overarching theme in all of scripture speaks out against this kind of legalism that turns God's law from being about the heart and intent to just following a list of rules? Christ said that is yoke is easy and his burden is light, but I don't see an easy yoke and light burden in Catholicism, but a long list of rules one must follow.

Canon law (not 'cannon' but 'canon' - a measuring stick) is of course legalistic because it is the law of the Church. It is supposed to be legalistic. And we need a code of law to govern the functioning of the Church, to handle cases of what is allowed and not allowed. When one does not act according to the heart, the rules kick in. But if one follows the heart, in tune with the heart of Jesus, canon law is not needed. One could be oblivious to it and all would be fine. It's there as a necessary backup and restraint for those of us who behave badly, mostly for those behaving badly in the name of the Church. For the rest of us it actually protects our rights from those behaving badly.

The catechism does refer to canon law from time to time, and thus it sometimes comes off as legalistic. Mostly it deals with teaching on faith and morals, not on legal structure.

The section on 'General Norms' of the Code of Canon Law is worth a read. Some other sections on the sacraments as well.