Can Liberal Christianity Be Saved?

[CMatt25]

CMatt call me ever so practical but I think basing my faith on the words of Jesus, passed onto the Rock onto which His church was to be built, followed by 2000 years of incredible intellectual effort, tradition and the Apostolic Succession seems to have a firmer foundation than basing everything on current culture.

Liberal Christians believe they are following Christ by following their personal desires, passions and agendas. When it is pointed out that their support of such acts as abortion or same sex marriage has absolutely no basis in Scripture or tradition or wisdom of the ages, they punt and say “God is love…” therefore I can do whatever I want. To each his own CMatt. But don’t wonder why liberal Christianity has become an oxymoron.

Lisa

Lisa, what I call you is a believer in Catholicism, believing in Matt 16 that Peter himself was the rock and not his words about Jesus. Believing Catholic interpretation of everything including interpretation of 2000 yrs of history and believing Christ never needs to reform His Church so the gates do not prevail. This is your faith. Where you place your faith and is what you believe.

But you are so wrong about liberal Christians following only their personal desires and agendas and dismissing Scripture. When in fact they simply might have a different interpretation of Scripture with regard to homosexuality for instance and other things than what you do. I understand you might have an agenda against them or at least that is how it appears to me. But liberal Christians believe as they grow in faith, they can learn and uncover and come to further understandings of matters of faith and belief.

Since I don’t believe liberal Christianity is an oxymoron, I never wonder about why it has become one. But in any case as usual we are just going around in circles at this point. So again God bless you on your faith journey. Peace be with you.

Your brother in Christ,
CMatt25

 

[CMatt25]

What does it mean to be Roman Catholic if not to agree with the teachings of that particular church?

According to a Roman Catholic bishop I asked, one of the things it means is you are still a member of the Catholic Church by virtue of your Baptism and still a Catholic even if you don’t agree with the teachings. One might be less than fully practicing, or non practicing as he said but still a Catholic. And he went on to say being practicing does not exclude the possibility of sin in one’s life.

Indeed both have repentance and mercy available to them and none of us know when the Roman Catholic who is not fully practicing might avail themselves to it.

 

[Nine_Two]

Besides the love Prodigal Son1 has mentioned in his posts, here are some alternatives from St Paul.

Colossians 3:12 You are the people of God; he loved you and chose you for his own. So then, you must clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience.

And St James gives this advice as he speaks of teachers being judged with greater strictness and that they must watch their tongues.

James 3:1 My friends, not many of you should become teachers. As you know, we teachers will be judged with greater strictness than others… 8 But no one has ever been able to tame the tongue. It is evil and uncontrollable, full of deadly poison. 9 We use it to give thanks to our Lord and Father and also to curse other people, who are created in the likeness of God. 10 Words of thanksgiving and cursing pour out from the same mouth. My friends, this should not happen! 11 No spring of water pours out sweet water and bitter water from the same opening.12 A fig tree, my friends, cannot bear olives; a grapevine cannot bear figs, nor can a salty spring produce sweet water.

I apologize, I forgot all about this thread and this question for the past week, if you’re still following could you be more specific. It is all well and good to say “be nice”, but what are we actually supposed to do when someone forces error on the church? How are we supposed to be nice?

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, what I call you is a believer in Catholicism, believing in Matt 16 that Peter himself was the rock and not his words about Jesus. Believing Catholic interpretation of everything including interpretation of 2000 yrs of history and believing Christ never needs to reform His Church so the gates do not prevail. This is your faith. Where you place your faith and is what you believe.

But you are so wrong about liberal Christians following only their personal desires and agendas and dismissing Scripture. When in fact they simply might have a different interpretation of Scripture with regard to homosexuality for instance and other things than what you do. I understand you might have an agenda against them or at least that is how it appears to me. But liberal Christians believe as they grow in faith, they can learn and uncover and come to further understandings of matters of faith and belief.

Since I don’t believe liberal Christianity is an oxymoron, I never wonder about why it has become one. But in any case as usual we are just going around in circles at this point. So again God bless you on your faith journey. Peace be with you.

Your brother in Christ,
CMatt25

No CMatt, Christ established His Church with His words. This is not simply an interpretation but the actual words of Christ (this assumes you believe the Bible is the enlightened Word of God). Maybe you reject Christ’s words and if so, I completely understand your position. If you do take Christ’s Word seriously then you need to explain why your (in that I mean liberal Christianity) interpretation on subjects such as life, sexuality, marriage, are completely different than the interpretations of Biblical scholars for 2000+ years. Can you explain to me why you find current culture a more credible source for your beliefs than thousands of years of scholarship and interpretation? You seem to maintain totally circular reasoning…I believe this because I believe this. I interpret Scripture this way because I interpret Scripture this way. Huh?

I have no agenda against homosexuals, I only ask that they do not push their agenda on schoolchildren, the Church, in every public sphere and in legislation. I do not care what other people do in their bedrooms. They should keep this area of life to themselves just as most civilized people keep their marital practices a private and sacred part of their life.

Lisa

 

[CopticChristian]

Perhaps some Catholics see the church as being something other than whatever the clergy currently installed in Rome at any given point in time says it is?

Why should Catholics necessarily automatically follow the interpretations of a group of leaders they had no role in selecting?

What if somebody you really don’t agree with should be selected as the leadership the next time, will you change your view to match theirs?

Maybe some see the clergy as advisers, instead of rulers?

Typist,

It is difficult to understand what you see as appointed, selected, installed.

Imagine your mother and father, you did not select them, you did not elect them…but that is what you have. You can disagree with them, you can follow their advice, you can rebel.

There is such a thing that we believe in called succession. It is like this. Christ told the Apostles…the Church established by Christ with the Apostles and then they told other people what they were to do and teach and out of that came a book.

From that book and things that were told come teachings. These teachings are as if coming from Christ because in that book one of the Apostles says that the Church Christ founded is the pillar and foundation of truth and the mystery hidden for all ages by which the manifold wisdom of God is known.

So if you believe in God, you believe that Christ was God/man…and the teachings in essence come from God…

It is like the parents…we can question, we can follow, we can rebel…and in that book there is a story of

The Prodigal Son…

read about it…

 

[Trebor135]

No one has any idea when they might repent.

Here you frame rejection of Catholic doctrines now set in stone (Cheese mentioned women’s ordination, so let’s go with that example) in the context of sin-repentance-contrition-amendment. Operating under this paradigm, we have to make a distinction between struggling to overcome personal failings and being apathetic towards overcoming personal failings. I understand for someone to remain Catholic if (1) they have a hard time believing that only men can be ordained to the priesthood in their Church but (2) are humbly open to changing their mind. What I am labeling as hypocritical is for someone to remain Catholic if (1) they firmly believe that women have the God-given right to be ordained to the priesthood and (2) insist that their Church alter its decision.

And in the meantime is the Catholic Church engaging in “profound hypocrisy” by calling them Catholics, albeit perhaps not fully practicing, but still Catholics?

The Catholic Church holds that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of any individual to have received the sacrament at the hands of one of its priests. So, one may be technically Catholic but not in a proper relationship with the Church. It’s a subtle distinction, but one important to remember here.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Lets call a spade a spade.

Precisely what I’m calling for. Accuracy even if the matter seems too “trivial” to those of you more concerned with what you see as the big picture of the conflict between Truth and Heresy.

Let me cite a few examples.

Two priests. Lets admit that some priests have same sex attraction. Two priests living in their housing have this same sex attraction and never act on it and serve the Church as celibate. Their relationship may be considered a couple however they never define it, they just live together and take care of each other and serve the Church.

Two Nuns. Lets admit that some nuns have same sex attraction. These nuns live in community and serve each other and never act on the same sex attraction. They live together, have a relationship and serve the Church.

Now in the community two people male or female live together and care for each other, both with same sex attraction and never act on it. Are you saying that these people are not so different?

If these people you speak of are not acting on the same sex attraction and are just caring for each other and relating to each other, doing things all that are non-sexual then is this what you are talking about?

No, what I’m saying is that even if they do act on it, that does not define the entirety of their relationship.

I’m also saying that people who have no sexual attraction to each other may care for each other in many of the same ways that people who have a sexual relationship do. (Or, of course, those who have sexual attraction but don’t act on it, but I’m not really treating that as a separate category–I think we’re way too obsessed as a society with who is attracted to whom, instead of what we choose to do about it.)

Here’s the basic point I’m trying to make: if you actually talk to liberal Christians, at least thoughtful and serious ones (and yes, they do exist), then you will find (as I did) that they have all kinds of standards other than “tolerance.” They recognize gay unions not just because of some kind of blanket “tolerance” (which, as conservatives frequently and rightly point out, would compel them to acknowledge all sorts of other things as well), but because they have come to see signs of goodness and holiness in these relationships. When you listen to liberal defenses of same-sex unions, they don’t focus on the sexual aspect at all. It is generally conservatives who do this–and liberals often use this to accuse conservatives of being nasty-minded people obsessed with sex. Conservatives want to talk about the precise actions involved in male homosexuality, for instance, exploiting the “gross-out factor.” Liberals treat this as offensive vulgarity. Thus, conservatives and liberals tend to talk past each other.

I think that we need to recognize that in fact many same-sex relationships have many of the same virtues that we find in non-sexual relationships (or, for that matter, in marriage, but I’m not arguing that same-sex relationships are equivalent to marriage; I’m arguing that some of them are basically good, virtuous friendships with one disordered element).

But more to the point of the original discussion between me and Lisa, I’m simply pointing out that liberals focus on this and see this as the legitimating factor. It’s not simply a matter of tolerance, but of moral norms based on respect for the other, faithfulness to the other, etc., all of which are seen as “using our bodily desires as God intended.”

Here’s an example that may make it clearer: a husband who abuses his wife and uses her as a sexual object without regard for her as a person is clearly not “using his bodily desires as God intended.” I hope we all agree on that. Liberals think that the kinds of moral norms that enable us to judge the actions of this abusive husband are really the only ones that count (well, many, like my former priest to whom I referred above, would add a commitment to lifelong monogamy, at least as an ideal). They certainly think this in part because of the commitment to tolerance that Lisa mentioned. But that doesn’t make tolerance their only norm, and it’s important to recognize this.

Edwin

 

[CopticChristian]

Precisely what I’m calling for. Accuracy even if the matter seems too “trivial” to those of you more concerned with what you see as the big picture of the conflict between Truth and Heresy.

No, what I’m saying is that even if they do act on it, that does not define the entirety of their relationship.

I’m also saying that people who have no sexual attraction to each other may care for each other in many of the same ways that people who have a sexual relationship do. (Or, of course, those who have sexual attraction but don’t act on it, but I’m not really treating that as a separate category–I think we’re way too obsessed as a society with who is attracted to whom, instead of what we choose to do about it.)

Here’s the basic point I’m trying to make: if you actually talk to liberal Christians, at least thoughtful and serious ones (and yes, they do exist), then you will find (as I did) that they have all kinds of standards other than “tolerance.” They recognize gay unions not just because of some kind of blanket “tolerance” (which, as conservatives frequently and rightly point out, would compel them to acknowledge all sorts of other things as well), but because they have come to see signs of goodness and holiness in these relationships. When you listen to liberal defenses of same-sex unions, they don’t focus on the sexual aspect at all. It is generally conservatives who do this–and liberals often use this to accuse conservatives of being nasty-minded people obsessed with sex. Conservatives want to talk about the precise actions involved in male homosexuality, for instance, exploiting the “gross-out factor.” Liberals treat this as offensive vulgarity. Thus, conservatives and liberals tend to talk past each other.

I think that we need to recognize that in fact many same-sex relationships have many of the same virtues that we find in non-sexual relationships (or, for that matter, in marriage, but I’m not arguing that same-sex relationships are equivalent to marriage; I’m arguing that some of them are basically good, virtuous friendships with one disordered element).

But more to the point of the original discussion between me and Lisa, I’m simply pointing out that liberals focus on this and see this as the legitimating factor. It’s not simply a matter of tolerance, but of moral norms based on respect for the other, faithfulness to the other, etc., all of which are seen as “using our bodily desires as God intended.”

Here’s an example that may make it clearer: a husband who abuses his wife and uses her as a sexual object without regard for her as a person is clearly not “using his bodily desires as God intended.” I hope we all agree on that. Liberals think that the kinds of moral norms that enable us to judge the actions of this abusive husband are really the only ones that count (well, many, like my former priest to whom I referred above, would add a commitment to lifelong monogamy, at least as an ideal). They certainly think this in part because of the commitment to tolerance that Lisa mentioned. But that doesn’t make tolerance their only norm, and it’s important to recognize this.

No, what I’m saying is that even if they do act on it, that does not define the entirety of their relationship.

Edwin

Edwin,

Thanks again for the book referrals…

Let us just take what we believe is wrong or right out of the picture. Take any action and a relationship.

In my eyes the entirety of a relationship is judged first by the actions and then the particulars are examined. You are saying look at the particulars and then look at the entirety.

Two people regardless of sex, buy and sell illegal drugs, and yet they care for each other, provide for their children, pay their taxes, attend Church and when you meet them they are models of Charity. Do you say that what they do is not relevant in the context of who they are?

You do understand that in the context of looking at a relationship I am bound by the Catechism/Church teaching and therefore I look at the actions in general and then the particulars in general. Yes, unfortunately, it is throwing out the baby with the bath water. I cannot change that.

You describe Liberal and Conservative, thoughtful and serious people that are tolerant. I have a difficult time adhering to this construct within the framework of the OHCAC. I like the rigidity of thinking of the OHCAC. There is black and white. It keeps me sane. I don’t have to weigh this and that. It is like the practice of medicine where facts are facts as opposed to the unfortunate situation with Psychiatry where it is voted on and one day it is this and the next day it is that.

Mixed messages are part and parcel of Schizophrenia. I like not having to weigh this and that and then have to decide what is the measure of “tolerance”…how do you gauge that? People are “thoughtful and serious” well then how do I know if anyone is as thoughtful and serious as I am and if we disagree where is the rule to follow. Thus I am left to reason without Faith as a guide. This Church regards Reason as a means to ascent to Faith and form your conscience to guide you and keep you safe on your journey home.

I would expect to find some virtues in humanity of all type. Do you want me to believe that people are all good or all bad? Even the most despicable human behavior can demonstrate some emotional virtue. It just happens that when people guide themselves they don’t always produce the best results. Do we leave our children to guide themselves? Yes the Church treats us like children. Some of us have the ability to look at the rules and regulations and say…what is all the clamor for?…that is how I am and yet others rebel. Is that so new? It is like why write “Veritatis Splendor”…don’t we already know that? Well, I guess not…the Church is constantly teaching and reinforcing Christ…because we don’t always get the message…if that were so, then the Church would have a Bible, leaders, go to Mass, receive the Sacraments…no dialogue, no teaching, since we got it. The problem is “we don’t got it”!!!

Concerning disordered elements it is like a cake made with salt and no sugar. Is it a cake? It is like husband and wife as you say united in every way and between the two they do something that is disordered, sell pornography, sell drugs, teach their children that it is OK to do that…but they are a loving couple. So do we take the one element and accept “tolerance”…?

Your example of the abusive relationship makes it clear that without looking at sex, the abusive relationship is a harmful relationship and that looking at the entirety of the relationship makes no sense when there is a disordered action of abuse. If you were to see homosexual acts as abusive to the individual and partner then you would agree.

So the final question is…

Who decides what is and is not tolerated?

Who decides what is and is not serious and thoughtful?

 

[Contarini]

Edwin,

Thanks again for the book referrals…

Let us just take what we believe is wrong or right out of the picture. Take any action and a relationship.

In my eyes the entirety of a relationship is judged first by the actions and then the particulars are examined.

I don’t see what you mean by this. Actions are particulars.

The question is: why is the sexual aspect of a relationship, whether rightly ordered (marriage, involving two people of opposite sexes) or disordered (anything else), the only thing to consider? I don’t find your distinction between “actions” and “particulars” clear at all.

Two people regardless of sex, buy and sell illegal drugs, and yet they care for each other, provide for their children, pay their taxes, attend Church and when you meet them they are models of Charity. Do you say that what they do is not relevant in the context of who they are?

Not at all. If you look at the thread of the argument, Elizabeth argued that “fidelity” is valueless in same-sex relationships because it’s simply “a succession of evil acts.” That’s the context in which I separated out the sexual element. I’m saying that “fidelity” doesn’t just mean “having sex with the same person over and over.” It involves all these other things which are clearly valuable. Hence (to go back a step to my original disagreement with Lisa), the Episcopal Church does in fact have norms other than tolerance–the folks who dominate TEC right now judge these various things to be good based on the same norms any other Christians would use, and then (based indeed partly on a false notion of tolerance) make the further, mistaken judgment that therefore the sexual aspect of the relationship should not be judged as disordered.

You do understand that in the context of looking at a relationship I am bound by the Catechism/Church teaching and therefore I look at the actions in general and then the particulars in general. Yes, unfortunately, it is throwing out the baby with the bath water. I cannot change that.

Yes, you can. I can’t see anything in the Catechism or Church teaching that requires you to take this unjust approach. Your concept of the “actions in general” makes no sense and does not come from Church teaching. The question is whether there are meaningfully virtuous aspects of same-sex relationships which may be evaluated and judged worthy of blessing based on norms other than an “anything-goes” form of tolerance. I’m arguing that yes, there are. I agree entirely with you and the other Catholics and against the dominant faction in my denomination on the question of whether this rules out the traditional view that same-sex sexual acts/relationships are intrinsically disordered. I agree that they are.

You describe Liberal and Conservative, thoughtful and serious people that are tolerant. I have a difficult time adhering to this construct within the framework of the OHCAC. I like the rigidity of thinking of the OHCAC.

But this rigidity doesn’t seem to me to inhere in the OHCAC, but in one faction within it which claims to represent “true” Catholicism. Plenty of Catholics–including every Pope since Vatican II, at least–don’t think this way.

Rigid, black-and-white thinking which ignores the complexities of human reality is an affront to the God who made us and specifically to our Lord Jesus who redeemed us. It’s disastrous.

That does not mean relativism. It means that we adhere to the teachings of the Church and apply them in a nuanced, careful way to the complex, messy realities of human behavior.

And when liberal Christians abandon the historic teachings of the Church, we try to understand what is impelling them to do so instead of caricaturing them as Lisa did.

That’s what I’m arguing for. The fact that a number of posters on this thread simply can’t grasp that that’s what I’m doing, and persist in assuming that I’m defending the Episcopal Church’s current policies no matter how often I protest otherwise, is imply further evidence of the hopeless inadequacy of rigid, black-and-white thinking.

There is black and white. It keeps me sane.

Well, it drives me stark raving crazy. Mostly because it just isn’t truthful.

I don’t have to weigh this and that.

But orthodox Catholic moral theology is very much about weighing “this and that.” It’s taken poundings from Protestants and Jansenists for centuries for doing just that.

People are “thoughtful and serious” well then how do I know if anyone is as thoughtful and serious as I am and if we disagree where is the rule to follow.

Again, you’re misinterpreting what I meant, taking it out of context.

I didn’t suggest that anything thoughtful and serious people say should just be accepted. The priest to whom I referred several posts ago–my rector for the last year or so that I lived in New Jersey–was definitely a “thoughtful and serious” person, and I disagreed with her all the time. She did more than anyone else to help me both appreciate liberal Christianity and understand how fundamentally I disagreed with it, and just what that disagreement consisted of.

All I meant by “thoughtful and serious” is that of course many liberals just mouth the rhetoric of “tolerance” without thinking through the implications. It’s no more fair to build your picture of liberalism on that kind of simplistic rhetoric than it is to build your picture of Catholicism on the silly things that a poorly catechized Catholic may say.

I would expect to find some virtues in humanity of all type. Do you want me to believe that people are all good or all bad?

Indeed no. Hence the hopeless inadequacy of “rigid,” “black-and-white” thinking!

Concerning disordered elements it is like a cake made with salt and no sugar. Is it a cake?

But if you taste the cake, and in fact it isn’t salty, then perhaps you conclude that actually what is in it is not salt but a sugar substitute.

Since you know from good medical authorities that the sugar substitute is carcinogenic, you don’t eat the cake. Indeed you warn others not to eat the cake.

But you don’t run around telling everyone that the people who do like the cake do so because they don’t recognize the difference between salt and sugar. That clearly just isn’t true.

Your example of the abusive relationship makes it clear that without looking at sex, the abusive relationship is a harmful relationship and that looking at the entirety of the relationship makes no sense when there is a disordered action of abuse. If you were to see homosexual acts as abusive to the individual and partner then you would agree.

But it’s clear, again, that homosexual acts don’t have that kind of overall effect. See my example above about salt versus a sugar substitute. That doesn’t mean that the sexual aspect of the relationship is not toxic. It just means that you have to distinguish different kinds and degrees of “toxicity.”

Edwin

 

[CMatt25]

I apologize, I forgot all about this thread and this question for the past week, if you’re still following could you be more specific. It is all well and good to say “be nice”, but what are we actually supposed to do when someone forces error on the church? How are we supposed to be nice?

I already quoted St Paul saying to be compassionate, kind, humble, gentle and patient. St James suggested watching our tongues and that not many of us should be teachers if we can not control our tongues. So I’m sorry but I’m simply not following your question unless you don’t know how to do those things.

 

[Stephen168]

Perhaps some Catholics see the church as being something other than whatever the clergy currently installed in Rome at any given point in time says it is?

Why should Catholics necessarily automatically follow the interpretations of a group of leaders they had no role in selecting?

What if somebody you really don’t agree with should be selected as the leadership the next time, will you change your view to match theirs?

Maybe some see the clergy as advisers, instead of rulers?

Perhaps…what if…maybe…? Liberals are the ones who want to change 2000 years of teaching not the other way around. A teaching does not become 2000 years old by the whims of a current leader.

 

[CMatt25]

No CMatt, Christ established His Church with His words. This is not simply an interpretation but the actual words of Christ (this assumes you believe the Bible is the enlightened Word of God). Maybe you reject Christ’s words and if so, I completely understand your position. If you do take Christ’s Word seriously then you need to explain why your (in that I mean liberal Christianity) interpretation on subjects such as life, sexuality, marriage, are completely different than the interpretations of Biblical scholars for 2000+ years. Can you explain to me why you find current culture a more credible source for your beliefs than thousands of years of scholarship and interpretation? You seem to maintain totally circular reasoning…I believe this because I believe this. I interpret Scripture this way because I interpret Scripture this way. Huh?

I have no agenda against homosexuals, I only ask that they do not push their agenda on schoolchildren, the Church, in every public sphere and in legislation. I do not care what other people do in their bedrooms. They should keep this area of life to themselves just as most civilized people keep their marital practices a private and sacred part of their life.

Lisa

Your belief encompasses the Catholic Church’s interpretation of His actual words, Lisa. Neither one of us were there. And I’ve already explained because liberal Christians understand humans have finite minds and God is infinite, they believe further and greater understanding may evolve as we go through time. But liberal Christians don’t need to have every “i” dotted and “t” crossed for them.

There are many who likewise do not want the Catholic Church to push their agenda on them and in legislation either.

We shall just have to agree to disagree Lisa and I’m fine with that. Peace.

 

[CMatt25]

Here you frame rejection of Catholic doctrines now set in stone (Cheese mentioned women’s ordination, so let’s go with that example) in the context of sin-repentance-contrition-amendment. Operating under this paradigm, we have to make a distinction between struggling to overcome personal failings and being apathetic towards overcoming personal failings. I understand for someone to remain Catholic if (1) they have a hard time believing that only men can be ordained to the priesthood in their Church but (2) are humbly open to changing their mind. What I am labeling as hypocritical is for someone to remain Catholic if (1) they firmly believe that women have the God-given right to be ordained to the priesthood and (2) insist that their Church alter its decision.

The Catholic Church holds that baptism leaves an indelible mark on the soul of any individual to have received the sacrament at the hands of one of its priests. So, one may be technically Catholic but not in a proper relationship with the Church. It’s a subtle distinction, but one important to remember here.

No one can insist or force the Catholic Church to alter Her decision not to ordain women. I agree though who is a Catholic according to the Church is important to remember here. Unfortunately I find the actual Church’s answer to this is far too often misrepresented here. I think people would be far more in line with Church teaching to say someone has left the full practice of the faith rather than to say they are no longer Catholic. .

 

[LisaA]

Your belief encompasses the Catholic Church’s interpretation of His actual words, Lisa. Neither one of us were there. And I’ve already explained because liberal Christians understand humans have finite minds and God is infinite, they believe further and greater understanding may evolve as we go through time. But liberal Christians don’t need to have every “i” dotted and “t” crossed for them.

There are many who likewise do not want the Catholic Church to push their agenda on them and in legislation either.

We shall just have to agree to disagree Lisa and I’m fine with that. Peace.

My belief is based on the words in the Bible. Do you believe in Christ’s teachings and his directives and his proclamations or not? Maybe you are among the “Jesus Project” folks who went through the Bible and decided that much of what is attributed to Jesus was made up by writers centuries later?

I keep responding to you CMatt although you are doing your best to avoid answering any questions. I’ve told you that I base my faith on Scripture and 2000 years of tradition, intellectual inquiry and faithful adherence to the Word of God.

What do you base your “liberal” Chrisitanity upon CMatt? You keep saying liberals “believe something different” (that’s pretty obvious with the support of abortion, gay marriage, belief in big government programs to address society’s ills). The question CMatt is WHY do you have such beliefs? There seems to be no basis other than “we interpret the Bible differently.” IOW the Bible says what I think it says.

Is that your standard? That’s what I do not understand about liberal Christianity because it seems to ignore many of the foundational teachings: respect for human life, love as defined by the willingness to lay down one’s life, i.e. self sacrificial, focus on the Kingdom of Heaven, not what we may desire at this moment.

Help me out here CMatt. I’m trying to understand your thought process.

Lisa

 

[Trebor135]

No one can insist or force the Catholic Church to alter Her decision not to ordain women. I agree though who is a Catholic according to the Church is important to remember here. Unfortunately I find the actual Church’s answer to this is far too often misrepresented here. I think people would be far more in line with Church teaching to say someone has left the full practice of the faith rather than to say they are no longer Catholic. .

That’s a way of putting things which I can accept.

 

[SteveVH]

Here you frame rejection of Catholic doctrines now set in stone (Cheese mentioned women’s ordination, so let’s go with that example) in the context of sin-repentance-contrition-amendment. Operating under this paradigm, we have to make a distinction between struggling to overcome personal failings and being apathetic towards overcoming personal failings. I understand for someone to remain Catholic if (1) they have a hard time believing that only men can be ordained to the priesthood in their Church but (2) are humbly open to changing their mind. What I am labeling as hypocritical is for someone to remain Catholic if (1) they firmly believe that women have the God-given right to be ordained to the priesthood and (2) insist that their Church alter its decision.

Those in your second classification are, in essence, protestants who haven’t yet found a new home or started their own church. They claim enlightenment that rises above the doctrines, disciplines and teachings of the Church, claiming that it is oudated, or intolerant, or bigoted. They, instead, protest. It is the elitist attitude and lack of humility that bothers me the most. Padre Pio said “the voice of the Church is the voice of Christ”. This, after he was told he could no longer celebrate Mass in public, which was devestating. The Church has battled this since its inception and, thank God, has stuck to its guns.

 

[Trebor135]

Those in your second classification are, in essence, protestants who haven’t yet found a new home or started their own church.

Haha

They claim enlightenment that rises above the doctrines, disciplines and teachings of the Church, claiming that it is oudated, or intolerant, or bigoted. They, instead, protest. It is the elitist attitude and lack of humility that bothers me the most.

Amen. Their pride (not just intellectual confidence) is indeed very irksome.

Nice anecdote about Padre Piò. I’m also glad the Catholic Church isn’t budging on the moral issues. Why was he forbidden from saying Mass publicly, and by whom?

 

[SteveVH]

Haha

Amen. Their pride (not just intellectual confidence) is indeed very irksome.

Nice anecdote about Padre Piò. I’m also glad the Catholic Church isn’t budging on the moral issues. Why was he forbidden from saying Mass publicly, and by whom?

It was, actually, for a good reason. Because of the stigmata and his stature as a living saint every Mass was becoming a circus. Crowds of people were coming to see Padre Pio, rather than for the Eucharist and the Word. He understood this, but it still caused him great pain. Nevertheless, in obedience he submitted to the will of the bishop and only celebrated Mass in private.

 

[Trebor135]

It was, actually, for a good reason. Because of the stigmata and his stature as a living saint every Mass was becoming a circus. Crowds of people were coming to see Padre Pio, rather than for the Eucharist and the Word. He understood this, but it still caused him great pain. Nevertheless, in obedience he submitted to the will of the bishop and only celebrated Mass in private.

Wow, hearing that one could no longer say Mass for the people must have been a really bitter pill to swallow for Padre Piò…

 

[CopticChristian]

I don’t see what you mean by this. Actions are particulars.

The question is: why is the sexual aspect of a relationship, whether rightly ordered (marriage, involving two people of opposite sexes) or disordered (anything else), the only thing to consider? I don’t find your distinction between “actions” and “particulars” clear at all.

Not at all. If you look at the thread of the argument, Elizabeth argued that “fidelity” is valueless in same-sex relationships because it’s simply “a succession of evil acts.” That’s the context in which I separated out the sexual element. I’m saying that “fidelity” doesn’t just mean “having sex with the same person over and over.” It involves all these other things which are clearly valuable. Hence (to go back a step to my original disagreement with Lisa), the Episcopal Church does in fact have norms other than tolerance–the folks who dominate TEC right now judge these various things to be good based on the same norms any other Christians would use, and then (based indeed partly on a false notion of tolerance) make the further, mistaken judgment that therefore the sexual aspect of the relationship should not be judged as disordered.

Yes, you can. I can’t see anything in the Catechism or Church teaching that requires you to take this unjust approach. Your concept of the “actions in general” makes no sense and does not come from Church teaching. The question is whether there are meaningfully virtuous aspects of same-sex relationships which may be evaluated and judged worthy of blessing based on norms other than an “anything-goes” form of tolerance. I’m arguing that yes, there are. I agree entirely with you and the other Catholics and against the dominant faction in my denomination on the question of whether this rules out the traditional view that same-sex sexual acts/relationships are intrinsically disordered. I agree that they are.

But this rigidity doesn’t seem to me to inhere in the OHCAC, but in one faction within it which claims to represent “true” Catholicism. Plenty of Catholics–including every Pope since Vatican II, at least–don’t think this way.

Rigid, black-and-white thinking which ignores the complexities of human reality is an affront to the God who made us and specifically to our Lord Jesus who redeemed us. It’s disastrous.

That does not mean relativism. It means that we adhere to the teachings of the Church and apply them in a nuanced, careful way to the complex, messy realities of human behavior.

And when liberal Christians abandon the historic teachings of the Church, we try to understand what is impelling them to do so instead of caricaturing them as Lisa did.

That’s what I’m arguing for. The fact that a number of posters on this thread simply can’t grasp that that’s what I’m doing, and persist in assuming that I’m defending the Episcopal Church’s current policies no matter how often I protest otherwise, is imply further evidence of the hopeless inadequacy of rigid, black-and-white thinking.

Well, it drives me stark raving crazy. Mostly because it just isn’t truthful.

But orthodox Catholic moral theology is very much about weighing “this and that.” It’s taken poundings from Protestants and Jansenists for centuries for doing just that.

Again, you’re misinterpreting what I meant, taking it out of context.

I didn’t suggest that anything thoughtful and serious people say should just be accepted. The priest to whom I referred several posts ago–my rector for the last year or so that I lived in New Jersey–was definitely a “thoughtful and serious” person, and I disagreed with her all the time. She did more than anyone else to help me both appreciate liberal Christianity and understand how fundamentally I disagreed with it, and just what that disagreement consisted of.

All I meant by “thoughtful and serious” is that of course many liberals just mouth the rhetoric of “tolerance” without thinking through the implications. It’s no more fair to build your picture of liberalism on that kind of simplistic rhetoric than it is to build your picture of Catholicism on the silly things that a poorly catechized Catholic may say.

Indeed no. Hence the hopeless inadequacy of “rigid,” “black-and-white” thinking!

But if you taste the cake, and in fact it isn’t salty, then perhaps you conclude that actually what is in it is not salt but a sugar substitute.

Since you know from good medical authorities that the sugar substitute is carcinogenic, you don’t eat the cake. Indeed you warn others not to eat the cake.

But you don’t run around telling everyone that the people who do like the cake do so because they don’t recognize the difference between salt and sugar. That clearly just isn’t true.

But it’s clear, again, that homosexual acts don’t have that kind of overall effect. See my example above about salt versus a sugar substitute. That doesn’t mean that the sexual aspect of the relationship is not toxic. It just means that you have to distinguish different kinds and degrees of “toxicity.”

Edwin

Edwin,

In marriage two become one, what they do is the action as a one. The particulars are what it is made up of.

Two people regardless of sex, buy and sell illegal drugs, and yet they care for each other, provide for their children, pay their taxes, attend Church and when you meet them they are models of Charity. Do you say that what they do is not relevant in the context of who they are?

In same sex relationships they cannot become one, what they do as actions is not as one and is seen as such. The particulars are relevant as to to what it is made up of.

In the first case it is a proper marriage, one acting illegally…these actions are viewed first by me and seen in particular as a proper marriage.

In the second case it is not a proper marriage and what is done is relevant to what it is made up of in particular as it the cause of my seeing and understanding that this is not a proper marriage regardless of what comes of it.

Ok…