Dear Thirty Eight,

Thank you for your anonymous inquiry. Anonymous or identified, any inquirer who takes the time to visit our BSP web site, anyone whose heart is touched by the Holy Spirit to elicit a desire in him/her to understand further the words of God, will deserve all my time until they have a clear answer from me.

To avoid very lengthy emails, which most recipients dread, I will answer your questions in 2 or 3 separate emails, beginning with the first one. Please be patient with me. Since the inquiry is anonymous, I trust that you will not disagree if I share this email with my contact lists and have it posted on the Forum of the BSP web site.

Please do not hesitate to contact me again if you have any follow-up questions or needs for clarification.

God bless!

Edmond

P.S. For those interested, the Bible Study Program website is: www.cmcbsp.org

— On Mon, 2/16/09, 383838 383838 wrote:

From: 383838 383838
Subject: Questions
To: edmondkclo@yahoo. ca
Date: Monday, February 16, 2009, 3:46 PM

Dear Edmund:

I have visited your BSP website. Please allow me to ask a few questions anonymously.

Q1. Cafeteria Catholic: what is wrong with being cafeteria Catholic? Can we question the
Church’s teachings, Can we disagree. Even within the Church theologians, there are the left, the right and the moderate. When comes to Church teachings, should our conscience be superfluous.

E.Lo: The answers to all your questions, with the exception of the first one on being a “cafeteria Catholic”, are a resounding but to some extent qualified “yes”. Yes, we can question the Church’s teachings; yes, we can disagree; yes, the Church theologians do not always agree amongst themselves; and yes, our conscience should not be superfluous.

In spite of the common misconception, the Church is not a tyranny that rules supremely with an iron fist, insisting that she knows everything and everyone must march to her drum beats. She readily and humbly admits that when it comes to God’s revealed truths, “there is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on”, and that “as the centuries go by, the Church is always advancing towards the plenitude of divine truth” (Divine Revelation, n.8). In other words, there are many things about God’s revealed truths that the Church will have to continue to learn through the Holy Spirit, “the Spirit of truth” who was sent by Christ to “teach you everything” (John 14: 17, 26). She sees herself as an “exile” on earth, “always in need of purification” and constantly following “the path of penance and renewal” (Lumen Gentium n.6, 8). The Church on earth needs “penance and renewal” because as a community of mere mortals and sinners, she is also fallible.

As a result, the Church welcomes dissenting views where the truth of the issue being explored has not yet been fathomed or definitively confirmed. This position she takes, not only on issues relating to sciences and the various fields of academic pursuits, but also on issues pertaining to faith and morals. Faith or moral teachings that the Church has not proclaimed definitively and absolutely are called “non-infallible” teachings. For non-infallible teachings, the Church expects from her faithful “religious respect” or “a submission of mind and will” (in Latin “obsequium”) , which is to be differentiated from “an assent of faith” for teachings that are infallibly proclaimed (based on Ladislas Orsy’s “Reflections on a Canon” printed in R. Hamel and K. Himes’ “Introduction to Christian Ethics”, p. 354).

To explain in plain, layman language, if a Church teaching is infallible, the Catholics must obey with “an assent of faith” - you have no choice but to follow because the teaching has been irrevocably defined as a truth by the Church. For example, we have no choice but to accept everything cited in the Nicene Creed; we must also accept the Immaculate Conception of Mary, a dogma infallibily defined and proclaimed by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.

On the other hand, if a Church teaching is non-infallible, the Catholics are only required to respect the Church’s position. They will go so far as to “submit” their minds and wills to follow (G. Coleman, Human Sexuality, p.122-123). But if out of good conscience they can’t, they can maintain a different position but, for the good of the Church as a unified Body of Christ, will not use their dissent to publicly cause a scandal (Ibid., p. 119).

The problem with the “cafeteria Catholics” is that they break all the rules mentioned above: they refute not only non-infallible teachings but also infallible teachings based on their own personal values. (For example, as a cafeteria Catholic, I did not accept the doctrines of the Assumption of Mary and Immaculate Conception.) These people are not in full communion with the Church because of their dissents. And yet, they continue to go to mass and receive the communion! Do they know what that means? St. Paul has told them what that means:

“Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. A person should examine himself,
and so eat the bread and drink the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without
discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Cor. 11:27-29)

“But the cafeteria Catholic’s personal values are formulated based on his good conscience. How can the Church force him to ignore his good conscience and accept her “infallible” teaching when the two differ?” one would protest. Answer? Proper conscience formation. The onus is on the Church faithful to form their consciences properly, including making all honest efforts to read, research, listen to, and understand the Church’s position. “Oh, sure, I have already done that,” the cafeteria Catholic will retort quickly. Well, that was what I said too in my cafeteria Catholic days. But after taking more than 10 years to read all kinds of magisterial documents and pronouncements under the prompting of the Holy Spirit, and after using 7 years to do my Master of Theological Studies, I find out now that my retort was a little too hasty!

Q2. In the book “salt of the Earth” by our Pope (in the Forward), when asked how many ways are there to God, he said “as many as there are people”. My question is, can we go to God directly, without going through the Church (exclusive agent, using a secular term).

Q3. The souls in Hell: if God is so merciful, why has He given up on those souls in Hell. The answer I have been getting is that God has given us enough chances during our life time.
I find that answer not completely satisfactory. His mercy should be no bound, should extend
to the souls wherever they are , and He will not rest until all the souls ( including those in Hell)
have been saved. But that is not the Church’s position? Can you comment on this?

Thank you for helping me out in my search for the Truth.

Thirty Eight