Not at all, Shawn.

We all grow in faith and understanding.

What you have done is accepted the Church as Christ's Church, the one you can trust. We don't have to, and can't, understand everything but we can trust that she will not steer us wrong.

Mary Ann

Hi, Shawn —

I would add that in the gospel of John Jesus says simply,

If you love me you will keep my commands.

John 14:15

He never said that we should keep His commands only if we fully understand them. The doctrines of the Church are the truths of the gospel formulated for our salvation.

Maybe you could give us specific examples of which teachings you are having trouble with.

Paul

Shawn,

Your struggle is not uncommon and your honesty and perseverance is admirable. Remember that in the book of Genesis Jacob wrestled with God too (Genesis 32:22-32), and was rewarded for his perseverance. It's easy to thumb your nose at God and His divine will to seek one's own pleasure, especially in a culture like ours where so many others have done so. Even without full understanding, it is always good to trust Christ through His Church.

There are two moral principles at hand here.

1. One is that one can never do evil in order that good may come out of it. St. Paul speaks of this in the Bible and it is a solid Catholic principle.
2. The second is the principle of double-effect. The use of condoms in these situations does have two effects:

1. it potentially blocks the spread of disease, and
2. it blocks the potentiality of a conceived child.

For an act to be moral it must meet two criteria:

1. it can not be evil itself, and
2. the good effect must outweigh the bad effect

Halting the spread of a disease does not outweigh negating the potential existence of a child:
an effect which positively negates the very purpose of sexual intercourse, seriously violating natural law.

As usual, the best answer for fighting the spread of sexually transmitted diseases is God's law — monogamy, and celibacy until marriage.

Human life is sacred, and so is the human life process of sexual relations. If our parents used condoms the night we were conceived, even if it was for fear of spreading a disease, we would not exist. No one should block God's positive will in using us, as He designed us, to create other human beings.

Paul

Shawn:

1. It is infinitely better to exist with a disease than never to exist at all.
2. For humans who have a free will and moral responsibility before God, sex outside of marriage is wrong. Seriously wrong.
3. The two examples you give don't prove your point that official Church teachings might be wrong. The New Covenant with Christ, fulfilled the Old Covenant and the Mosaic law was replaced by the law of the Gospel. With Galileo, the problem was more with prudence; the Church urged caution and Galileo did not want to proceed that slowly. In addition the problem was within the scientific realm, not religious. Whether or not to use condoms in the act of the two becoming one-flesh is in the realm of religion, which the Church has an obligation to teach on because it is a matter relating to our salvation.
4. We may not understand the depths of what God understands, but He sent forth the
   Holy Spirit on Pentecost to lead, guide, and remind His Church of all truths. The official teaching of the Church is enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

You said:
My original question was regarding the teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

• How do I handle not understanding and disagreeing with certain teachings because my finite mind does not comprehend the teachings or understand the Church's view in its totality?
  
  
• Since I don't understand these teachings with full knowledge, what type of sin, if any, would this be considered?

Full knowledge regarding mortal sin does not mean full understanding of a Church teaching. It rather means full knowledge that something you've done is wrong. We can have full knowledge without a full understanding. Faith replaces any missing understanding at the time; faith that God's Word (and Church teaching) is true — despite any degree of lack of human understanding we may have.

Eventually we may understand it more fully (as usually happens with time), but until then, the full knowledge we possess comes through knowledge by faith, faith in Christ:

If you love me you will keep my commands. (John 14:15).

Full understanding of a teaching is not necessary for obedience through faith.

Paul

Hi, Shawn —

You said:
This makes no sense logically, because no one would know if they existed, if they were not born. In addition, some are born with defects and diseases.

You are speaking purely subjectively. You don't have to know or be aware of something for it to be true or false. It's an objective truth that existing is better than not existing; and existing with a disease might mean some suffering or sacrifice in this life with the potentiality of eternal everlasting happiness in the next. Non-existence obviously has none of that potential.

You said:

• How is this wrong to those who do not know God?
  
  
• You say it is wrong because you have certain beliefs that you say are universal but they are not.  You are simply giving your opinion from a RCC point of view. Other sects or religions may not say this, why speak with such certainty?

They are universally applicable, even though not all people recognize it. It's similar to saying eating and breathing are universally applicable even when babies aren't aware that they're breathing.

Morality is not as easy to see because original sin has darkened our intellects, but natural law, which is objective and universally applicable to all humans by virtue of us sharing a common human nature, dictates that sex is only for the monogamy of the marital relationship after the consent of total commitment is made. Without first having that total and permanent commitment sex becomes mutually agreed to selfishness (and abuse).

You said:
The examples were just that. I'm not saying it is wrong or that I agree or disagree with everything but the newer CCC appears to have many strong issues with it; specifically with Traditionalists — they think it is too liberal.

Some traditionalist Catholics argue that statements made in CCC conflict with past Catholic teachings on many topics, and claim it teaches:

• Gnosticism
• promotes the theory of evolution
• favors indifferentism (the belief that religions are equal)
• ecumenism (cooperation with non-Catholic Christians)
• secular collaboration and compromise
• homosexuality and internationalism.
  
  
  
• They maintain that, though theological opinion was not intended to be a part of CCC, it in fact does not distinguish between matters of faith and theological opinion. Since this discrepancy is not made, how are the teachings in the Catechism considered sacred?

Always beware of people on both sides of the Magisterium — the modernists and the traditionalists.

The official teaching of the Church is enlightened by the Holy Spirit.

You said:

• But if the Holy Spirit is never changing, why does the RCC change so often?

One can say that it doesn't change its teachings or doctrines but improves them. It sounds like a political statement, kind of like a lawyer.

The Word of God does not change; though man's understanding of it may deepen. The Church teaches the Word of God in Christ's name by the power of the Spirit. On universal matters of faith and morals she can't be wrong; the Holy Spirit won't let her. Customs, disciplines, and ways to approach God in worship, etc. can change because they are supposed to. Tradition with a small t by its very nature is meant to change with time and culture. But not Tradition with a capital T, which includes matters of faith and morals for the whole Church. The Word of God comes to us in Scripture and Tradition (capital T).

You said:

• As it relates to having a full knowledge of committing a sin, I still do not understand what you are trying to say. In order for a sin to be mortal, one needs to have full knowledge of it and since one does not have full knowledge, how is it a sin?

You seem to be using the term full knowledge as meaning to understand something fully.
I can have full knowledge that something is wrong because Christ says so and/or because the Church by the authority of Christ teaches it — even if I don't understand the content of the teaching fully with my own limited power of understanding. I can still fully know its wrong if
I have faith.

You said:
Thanks!

I'm not trying to be pushy; I'm a Religious major and have studied the religion throughout time and the world in many cultures so I find these questions educational.

I agree and I don't find you pushy at all. You remind me of myself in your relentless desire to understand. Don't let people stifle that. On the other hand, know that faith can and should complement understanding until our intellects are enlightened enough to see for ourselves.

Continue to pray for grace that enables us to have that spiritual sight.

Paul

Shawn,

The record in Africa shows that only in countries that teach abstinence has the HIV AIDS epidemic been stymied. Condoms paradoxically increase the spread of STDs because they increase sex,
and they are not reliable.

The problem in Africa is promiscuity and infidelity.

I can refer you to www.hli.org on this issue.

Mary Ann

Shawn,

If it helps, Uganda instituted a policy of promoting abstinence and was much more successful than other African countries that relied on promoting contraception alone. Ninety-three percent of their population changed their behavior as a result of their campaign. Many countries where they have promoted contraception very heavily, have only seen the problem increase. In stark contrast to Uganda, the countries with the highest rate of condom availability still have the world's highest AIDS rates — Zimbabwe, Botswana, South Africa and Kenya.

• In Botswana, HIV prevalence among pregnant urban women rose from 27 percent to a staggering 45 percent from 1993 to 2001 as condoms sales tripled.
• In Cameroon, adult HIV prevalence rose from 3 percent to 9 percent as condom sales rose from six million to 15 million during the same period.

There are several reasons for this. Condoms break down quickly in heat, and as you know these places are very hot. They must be used properly; there is a ten- to sixteen-step procedure for using them. They break and slip, too. A series of studies showed that they fail 8% of the time. Over ten years, the probability of pregnancy for a woman whose partner always uses condoms is 80%. Think of the chances of infection for someone whose spouse or partner is HIV-positive.

Condoms give a false sense of security. People think that if they use them they can have more and riskier sex. But with all the other factors — heat degradation, misuse, failure, and so forth — they end up more infected than they would have been had they feared HIV. Promoting condoms promotes a culture of infidelity and risky sex.

Also, the conditions make it difficult to change behavior. What happens is that husbands have to leave their wives for extended periods of time to work elsewhere, and they end up being unfaithful.

Dr. Michael Gottlieb, the scientist who made the original report to the Centers for Disease Control on gay-related immune deficiency (GRID), which was later relabeled AIDS, said,

"There is no such thing as safe sex for someone contemplating sex with an
HIV-positive person."

Dr. Helen Singer-Kaplan, founder of the Human Sexuality Program at the New York Weill Cornell Medical Center, Cornell University says,

"Counting on condoms is flirting with death."

One study concluded,

"Condoms failed to prevent HIV transmission in three of 18 couples, suggesting that the rate of condom failure with HIV may be as high as 17%."

(James J. Goedert, M.D. "What is Safe Sex?" New England Journal of Medicine, October 21, 1987, page 1,340.)

The bottom line: Condoms are not a safe way to prevent HIV transmission, nor an effective way to reduce HIV epidemics. As the Ugandan experience showed, abstinence or fidelity to a single partner is the key.

Here is a booklet and PDF article that may help:

• The Case Against Condoms: The Scientific and Moral Basis for the Teaching of the Catholic Church on Preventing the Spread of Disease
• [PDF] The Case Against Condoms by (HLI) Human Life International 2008

Eric