Can one disagree with some of their church's teaching,yet still love their church?
Sister Jean
2012/06/05 18:35:42
|
|
|||||
|
39 votes
|
|
91% | |||
|
1 vote
|
|
2% | |||
|
3 votes
|
|
7% | |||
Top Opinion
-
Jan Haskell 2012/06/05 19:27:21yes
+6Of course it's possible. Since God is the real head of the church, we need to pray for His guidance.
I disagreed with my Dad on many things and still loved him..
You seem to be implying that loving a gay person and being a practicing Catholic are at opposites. They most definitely are not.
As Catholics, we are called to extend the same love and respect to gay people as we would to anyone else -- it's just the sexual behavior that we're not supposed to approve. The Catholic Catechism says this clearly.
You don't think that being a practicing Catholic involves hating gay PEOPLE, do you? There is nothing in Catholic teaching that involves hating gays.
It's the behavior and lifestyle we are called to oppose -- not the people who engage in them.
IMHO, there are two elements to a relationship based on faith. Your acceptance of the other and the others' acceptance of you. Either side of that equation can be wholly or partially aligned and should be recognized and accepted for what it is.
For any particular faith, there may also be a gradient between minor elements of faith or ritual down toward critical rejection of core tenets. Regardless of which is where, it's logical that at some point on this spectrum, your church may fairly characterize your disagreement as blasphemous so that while you don't have a problem with the church - the church has a problem with you.
Neither has a secular obligation to change, but it seems fair to recognize the parishioner has the option (obligation) to leave the church just as the church has the option (obligation) to reject the parishioner.
In the end, there are at least two ways to view dissonance with the Church:
First: "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone"
Second: "......
IMHO, there are two elements to a relationship based on faith. Your acceptance of the other and the others' acceptance of you. Either side of that equation can be wholly or partially aligned and should be recognized and accepted for what it is.
For any particular faith, there may also be a gradient between minor elements of faith or ritual down toward critical rejection of core tenets. Regardless of which is where, it's logical that at some point on this spectrum, your church may fairly characterize your disagreement as blasphemous so that while you don't have a problem with the church - the church has a problem with you.
Neither has a secular obligation to change, but it seems fair to recognize the parishioner has the option (obligation) to leave the church just as the church has the option (obligation) to reject the parishioner.
In the end, there are at least two ways to view dissonance with the Church:
First: "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone"
Second: "...they have not listened to Him; they will be wanderers among the nations"
I find that where there is conflict in faith the person of ego presumes the first while failing to consider the second. Where there is conflict in faith without ego, the meek may fear the second sufficiently to feel compelled to consider the first.
On one hand, you have my sincere pity.
On the other hand, put the bath salts down and stay away from my pets.