Are Non-Catholics bound by Catholic Doctrine?


Are Non-Catholics bound by Catholic Doctrine? We Catholics believe the Pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth and teaches infallibly (doctrine and morals)…what he teaches is bound on Earth and in Heaven, so does this mean everybody should follow catholic doctrine…ie birth control, water baptism, ect ect. If the Pope has the keys to the Church Jesus established then he also has the authority for all people even those who do not profess to be Catholic.

With this said, when I explain Catholic Doctrine to non-catholics and they refuse to accept the truth are they now responsible for the sin where as before they may not have been responsible since they did not know the truth and was ignorant of Catholic doctrine.


anyone can explain anything. that doesnt mean that you are proving something. what we need is proof. unfortunately this is the one thing that catholics are totally incapable of doing. your explanations are all about faith, not objective evidences.


No they are not bound by Catholic doctrine. Since they have separated themselves from the church, or were never a part of it.

With this said, when I explain Catholic Doctrine to non-catholics and they refuse to accept the truth are they now responsible for the sin where as before they may not have been responsible since they did not know the truth and was ignorant of Catholic doctrine.

You have to realized that you cannot change the hearts of men or any individual. The Holy Spirit leads them to convert. If they are convince, and the grace of God moves them to act to convert, then they will convert.


Excuse me AgnosTheist, but you should really practice the ‘reasoned objectivity’ what you claim to preach. Your statement automatically presumes that the Church just makes decisions off the cuff. Yet in reality it does extensive studies both scientific and theological on issues. It issues very thorough documents why it accepts/condemns a practice and conducts symposiums in order to educate itself on issues/technologies. If you do not believe this just peruse the official Vatican site.

I would say in terms of the questions of Non-Catholic Christians being bound by doctrine is a bounded yes. If the magisterium issues something that is true for example the ban on birth control and does a precise job of explaining why it is wrong both scientifically and theologically and the Non-Catholic Christian rejects on a knee jerk reaction rather than on solid theological and scientific grounds then I do believe that they are transgressing.

God bless


Proof isn’t what is necessary in Catholic doctrine. It’s faith. Like St. Paul said, we live by faith, not by sight. Second, converting is the action of the Holy Spirit. Even Jesus said that there will be those who will reject his Gospel message. Look at the Jews who did not believe, or those pagans who worship Artemis, and did not like Barnabas or Paul change their religion.


Each person is bound by what God has given them the grace to understand. Grace comes in many forms, part of which is your explanation, part of which has to do with the upbringing of the individual, their understandings of language, intelligence, etc. etc… This is where invincible ignorance comes in. One is normatively bound by all that he Catholic Churches holds and teaches. Yet if one has not had the grace to understand those things we leave it to God to judge whether they are culpable of what they do not know, understand, and follow. God is not bound by his sacraments. Further as Catholics we are held to a higher obligation for what we have been given. “The one who did not know recieved a light beating, but to the one who knew he was treated as an unbeliever”. “To whom much has been given, much is required”. Luke 12.


Yes, for those who can hear and understand. They are not bound to Catholic Canon Law.


Hear, understand, and recognize the truth. Then they are under the gun to move. One may understand the logic of an argument without without seeing the conclusion as being the truth.


Is my logic flawed?

Let me explain it another way.

I as a Catholic believe adultery is a sin, does that mean that non-Christians who believe it is not a sin will not be held accountable for it by God simply because they do not accept it as evil or sinfull.
There is one truth and didn’t Jesus establish one Church which protects that truth (the bullwork of truth)? By not accepting the doctrines of the Church Jesus established (Catholic Church) aren’t even those non-Catholics required to follow Jesus and his Church and obey the doctrine since they have been bound on earth and heaven?

An example is a relative of mine is a very faithful person and one of the most loving, person I know…but she is not Catholic. I have explained the Catholic Faith and she sees the logic in some doctrine; however, she has to many misconceptions to ever consider believing what the Catholic Church Teaches as Sacred tradition or some of the other Doctrines which we have taught for many hundreds of years… Since I am explaining these truths to her and she denies to accept them and continues to be lead by her own flawed interpretation of scripture regardless how sincere she is, it is still flawed…and sin is committed because of her theological confusion.

I understood that even our separated brothers can have salvation if they are sincere in their faith and Christ…so do I jeopardize them by explaining to them Catholic doctrine and the refuse to accept it. “To whom much has been given, much is required”. Luke 12.


Bro. Rich

What is the difference between canon law and doctrine?

And is there a difference between understand and accept?
I have explained many Catholic Doctrines and if they understand why we believe the specific doctrine yet they do not believe are the bound by it?


Canon Law governs how Catholics act, how we do things as Catholics. For instance a Catholic is required by the Church to attend a Catholic Mass every Sunday and Holy day. A non-Catholic would not be required to attend Mass. A Christian however would be required to worship and honor God somehow on the Christian Sabbath, Sunday.

I believe that there is a difference between understanding and accepting.
I can understand the killing someone is wrong, but I don’t accept the fact that I cannot use it as an option when I want to get rid of a bothersome individual. That does not mean I can kill someone when ever I want.


For an act to be a mortal sin, it must be gravely wrong, the actor must understand that it is gravely wrong, and must perform it freely. If those conditions are not all met, the person’s culpability is lesser or even nonexistent – it is, at worst, a venial sin, which means doing some time in purgatory but not hell. So yes, the Church considers them binding, but God is merciful and just: he will not consign to hell someone who has tried to lead a moral life and reach the truth.

Which means that if all that is correct, there’re probably going to be some pretty interesting characters showing up in heaven.


Catholic Doctrine and Dogma are the Laws and Statutes of God. All of humanity is bound by it. However, they are not committing mortal sin if they do not know that they are breaking it, since they aren’t fully assenting to commit sin or break the law. Right?


So with this logic…if I am a non denominational Christian and truly believe I can be married to multiple weman or even married to another man then that is not a mortal sin???


Mortal sin as stated by the Catechism of the Catholic Church says there has to be full knowledge and intent. Full will and the matter must be of a grave nature. They are intrinsically evil. The things you describe are grave and have serious consequence. But we cannot judge if the person had full knowledge and will. The answer to your question is only God knows for sure that a mortal sin has been committed. Don’t confuse right or wrong in this case it is culpability vs. invinciable ignorance. Also a part of the knowledge is should they have known better or have they seared their conscience when they used to know better. Are the things habitual in nature. That is in andication that the full will is not there. Simply leave God as the judge.


From the CCC

**1857 **For a *sin *to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

**1859 **Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a **consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. **Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.



Maybe I am seeing these paragraphs through a tinted lens but it seems as though they validate what I already assumed. That if I witness and spread the truth and those people who do not accept the truth as Jesus taught it they are still held accountable even though they refuse to accept it as truth just maybe not held to the mortal culpability.

CCC 1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: " Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother." The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is more grave than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Maybe the whole unintentional ignorance and full knowledge part is what I am confused about. Being ignorant of scripture and ignorant of Catholic teachings reminds me of 2nd Tim where the verse speaks of the ignorant twisting scripture to their own destruction…I think those folks twisting scripture were ignorant of them being ignorant but were still culpable enough to be twisting it to their “destruction” which seems to be implying they are held accountable for laws they are not accepting and maybe not even aware of.

Example: As a Christian most of us believe killing an unborn child is murder…there are some Christians which honestly think they can terminate an unborn life if they do it before the 3rd or 4th month…the fact that they have convinced themselves it is ok doesn’t change the fact they murdered an innocent child…their ignorance of this seems to be (in your logic) ok as long as they are unintentionally ignorant and in their own heart (ok in their conscience with terminating a fetus). This concept just doesn’t seem right!


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit