Under God Perry Analysis

In chapter 5 of Under God, Perry claims that a Roman Catholic, under the condition that they engage in a conversation with the teaching of the Church, may disagree with Church teaching without being a faithful Catholic and make a political choice based on this position of disagreement. Essentially, a Catholic who undermines the teaching of his faith can still be a good Catholic. This is inherently wrong, although Perry’s point that one should attempt to arrive at one’s own moral position with the help of the Roman Catholic Church is correct. Perry notes that, for Catholics, it is “not the Bible that is supremely authoritative but the “magisterium” of the Church: the bishops and, ultimately the Pope” (86). That is, the Bible as interpreted by the magisterium is supremely authoritative in the Roman Catholic faith. By Perry’s own acknowledgment, it is not the individual’s interpretation of an issue that is authoritative to a Roman Catholic, but the magisterium’s interpretation that is the authentic teaching of the Church. To be a faithful member of the Roman Catholic faith is in fact, by definition, to follow the Church’s teachings. Perry’s conclusion, …show more content…
Take the issue of homosexuality, which Perry focuses on in this chapter. If the Roman Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and ”under no circumstances can they be approved”, then a faithful Catholic, by definition will follow this teaching (90). It could be the case that the judgment of the Catholic Church is wrong, and that one cannot, in good conscience, follow this teaching. However, to disobey a teaching of the Catholic Church would be a decidedly un-Catholic action. Perry wants to say that a faithful Catholic can disobey a teaching of the Church. This is, by definition,