Thank you all! What good resources. I think you may have found the one/ones I am looking for.
If I may post a situation with a follow-up question then:
A woman “distinguished preacher” was allowed to speak at a Mass at this one church in my community recently. Her talk during the Mass seemed fine (Except that the priest really didn’t give a homily. He did get up and speak for about 2 minutes, telling the congregation a little about the speaker.). I detected no statements that seemed to be against the teachings of the RCC. However, after Mass she was given the opportunity for a question-answer session with any congregants who wanted to ask her something. This was held in the church (she stood at the lectern where Scripture is read, not the social hall or a classroom outside of the church). One of the priests was sitting right there with the rest of us.
There were some congregants present for this who were obviously in favor of major doctrinal changes, which was apparent in the questions and comments they made. But the speaker was also talking about all sorts of things that “needed to be changed”. She talked about how the Church’s stance on birth control is an outdated idea from the 1930’s, and how Pope Benedict was responsibile for the "firing’ of that Jesuit priest from America magazine. The worst one was when she talked about how the Church’s stance on homosexuality is wrong, and is just based on “a few verses from the Old Testament”. (Helloooo - what about Romans 1:26-27 and [size=2]1 Cor. 6:9-10?). The thing that really bothered me about all of this was that she was standing insuide the Catholic Church, with a priest right there, saying those things. If she were saying them outside of the church that would be one thing, but to be IN the church saying it is another. She never made any attempt to say, “The Church’s stance on this is _______”. And of course, the priest said nothing either. [/size]
[size=2]So I was trying to figure out what part of the Catechism speaks to this sort of action. From what you all posted, I thing the answer is in 88:[/size]
The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.[size=2][/size] [/size]
[size=2]Would her actions be considered against 88? Also, would what she was saying be considered either incredulity or heresy:[/size]
*Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”[size=2][/size] [/size]
[size=2]Or am I just going off the deep end here, over-blowing the situation?[/size]
[size=2]Thanks again for your help.