How far can a liberal Catholic go and still be orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter yellow8yellowM
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Y

yellow8yellowM

Guest
How far can a liberal Catholic go and still be orthodox?

I know this topic has been discussed before, but let’s twist it a little. Let’s assume the “liberal” Catholic assents to all of the dogmas and doctrines of the Church. Where would the wiggle room be in the topic of contraception?
 
To be a Christian is to be oriented toward humanity. I can’t really tell you how that fits into Catholicism from what I have seen here. Most of the Catholics on this site embrace materialism, as far as I can tell. I doubt though, that CAF Catholics, as they call themselves, are representative of Catholicism as a form of Christianity. They seem to refer to less radically conservative Catholics, or anyone who has a broader understanding yet identifies as Catholic as a Cafeteria Catholic.

Perhaps that is the answer. Liberal Catholics tend to eat in cafeterias.
 
yellow8yellowM said:
I know this topic has been discussed before, but let’s twist it a little. Let’s assume the “liberal” Catholic assents to all of the dogmas and doctrines of the Church. Where would the wiggle room be in the topic of contraception?
Click to expand...
**CCC 2370 **
… In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil
Click to expand...
Simple answer; there is no “wiggle room” with intrinsic evil. Can one be orthodox and commit intrinsically evil acts?

Orthodoxy relates to adherence to the traditions and established practices of the faith. The Church has always taught contraception as morally unjust so it is part of the established faith. One cannot pick and choose what parts of the faith they will adhere to and still consider themselves orthodox.
 
The term “Liberal Catholic” is many times associated with the phrase “Cafeteria Catholic”.
These people tend to want to pick and choose which dogmas and rules of the church they wish to observe. This goes anywhere from not attending Mass on a regular basis to espousing Civil Divorce, Abortion, Contraception, Gay Marriage, and Women Priests. In their error, they actually believe they are Catholics in good standing.
Other Liberal Catholics are those who were born to non practicing Catholic parents, yet were Baptized in the Church, but were never Catachized to any great extent. Most of these people consider themselves as Catholics, even though they attend Mass only on the Holidays,
I would say the term “Liberal Catholic” precludes those who are practicing Catholics in full recognition of the Faith.
If one is truely a Practicing Catholic, one is educated in their faith and is orthodox in their beliefs and practices. This, in itself would preclude their being political liberal, unless you are using the term liberal in place of tolerant.
 
George_Stegmeir said:
The term “Liberal Catholic” is many times associated with the phrase “Cafeteria Catholic”.
These people tend to want to pick and choose which dogmas and rules of the church they wish to observe. This goes anywhere from not attending Mass on a regular basis to espousing Civil Divorce, Abortion, Contraception, Gay Marriage, and Women Priests. In their error, they actually believe they are Catholics in good standing.
Other Liberal Catholics are those who were born to non practicing Catholic parents, yet were Baptized in the Church, but were never Catachized to any great extent. Most of these people consider themselves as Catholics, even though they attend Mass only on the Holidays,
I would say the term “Liberal Catholic” precludes those who are practicing Catholics in full recognition of the Faith.
If one is truely a Practicing Catholic, one is educated in their faith and is orthodox in their beliefs and practices. This, in itself would preclude their being political liberal, unless you are using the term liberal in place of tolerant.
Click to expand...
I think someone can perfectly well be a “liberal” Catholic so long as they are not supporting intrinsic evils like abortion and contraception. I do not think that Catholics must consider themselves “conservative” and nothing else (liberal, libertarian, green, etc.). So long as they are not supporting intrinsic evil then it is not really an issue.
 
Religion was made for man, not man for religion. Of course God has appointed law, but it’s not just the letter of the law we obey, we obey the heart of the law- to seek the fullness of his truth in our mind, and body, and soul. We should seek the ultimate goodness, perfection Himself. It is written that God will spit out the lukewarm.

I have chosen Catholicism because of the sacraments and mysteries that are given and comprehended by the fathers and children of the church.
The creation has been given the gift to comprehend the creator, the One Who Is incomprehensible. So we spend our lives searching for the fullness of truth to live in wholeness. Jesus spoke about this on the Sermon on the Mount, when he said “Be perfect, just as our Father in heaven is perfect”. Why would one only want a fraction of his holiness? Why would one settle for “good” or lukewarm" in the reachable presence of the Almighty and His Perfection?

We are humans created good. Jesus established this, yet we can be made whole- or holy by the fullness of the Holy Spirit and his grace. In Him, in this mystery we are one, made new into one spirit and one body of the living Christ.
Like the man and the women, come together to be one flesh. The great mystery of their oneness, and the miracle of a new formed life. This is the very meaning of a church, this is one of the mysteries of the Eucharist. The establishment of life, and the One begotten life of Christ. Who would deny this life? Who would deny Him more praise?

If you found the greatest treasure of the most incomprehensible measure, would you only want a small piece of it? Just “enough to get by”?
 
There is no wiggle room on doctrine. As a Catholic in good standing with the Church you can not have views on contraception, abortion, marriage etc that deviate from the Church’s teaching
 
_Abyssinia said:
There is no wiggle room on doctrine. As a Catholic in good standing with the Church you can not have views on contraception, abortion, marriage etc that deviate from the Church’s teaching
Click to expand...
Yes I suspect hell is full of liberal catholics!
 
Thank you for your responses. Before this thread goes further, I want to clarify a few things:
  1. I am not a liberal catholic.
  2. I am trying to figure out how so-called liberal catholics can be orthodox, if this is possible.
  3. I understand that orthodoxy requires assent to doctrine and dogma; I am trying to see if there is wiggle room after this assented to.
 
There is no liberal or conservative in Catholic doctrine. It is either orthodox–conforming to Church teaching, or not. No wiggle room there.

The terms liberal and conservative apply to politics. One can be either and still be Catholic, providing one does not reject Catholic doctrine.
 
yellow8yellowM said:
Thank you for your responses. Before this thread goes further, I want to clarify a few things:
  1. I am not a liberal catholic.
  2. I am trying to figure out how so-called liberal catholics can be orthodox, if this is possible.
  3. I understand that orthodoxy requires assent to doctrine and dogma; I am trying to see if there is wiggle room after this assented to.
Click to expand...
I think point 3 is the lynch pin. Its not just dogma and doctrine, but also moral teachings under the normal magisterium. Too often people use the excuse that something is a) not implicitly stated or denied or b) want to ignore anything that is not declared as doctrine or dogmatically.

Really orthodoxy to me is not about meeting the letter of the law while looking for “wiggle room” to escape the spirit of the law. I believe if you understand the why, then the what naturally follows. For example if you start from sex being ordered to procreation then contraception is obviously opposed to a foundational nature of sex. The only reason to look for wiggle room is a disagreement or rejection of this fundamental nature. That would make the understanding heterodox to Church teaching.
 
Well, let’s see. Assuming Jesus was a Catholic in good standing and never left the faith, he lived in poverty; dedicated his life for the people; told us if we have 2 coats, to give one to the poor; chastized the religious right of his time, calling them “a brood of vipers”; and gave up his life for us all. That’s beyond liberal – that’s radical.

The first Christians, taking Jesus seriously (unlike today), pooled all their resources, giving according to their ability, and being given according to their need. That’s more radical than socialism (it is actually “primitive communism”); it makes the so-called liberals in America look like greedy capitalist pigs, with the conservatives being off the charts in the wrong – according to Christianity, assuming being “orthodox” also includes those who follow Jesus Christ.
 
Grace & Peace!
yellow8yellowM said:
  1. I understand that orthodoxy requires assent to doctrine and dogma; I am trying to see if there is wiggle room after this assented to.
Click to expand...
I think it’s possible to intellectually assent to every required doctrine and dogma but fail to look after the least of Christ’s brethren. If that’s the case, assent will be of very little avail when it comes to salvation (see Paul’s writing on love in I Corinthians) if it does not lead us to love. In other words, if what we believe prevents us from loving as we should or if it is not inviting us or challenging us to experience and to live out greater depths of love, then I don’t know that we can say that we’re believing correctly, even though we might profess to believe all the correct things.

Perhaps, then, it’d be better to speak of commitment rather than assent–something along the lines of: “I may not understand or agree with this teaching, but I’m committed to it as an expression of Christ’s Church which is meant to invite me into deeper relationship with my Lord and his people. While I cannot ignore my disagreement with the teaching, I will honor the teaching by struggling to understand it and to live it to the best of my ability and by God’s good grace.” That having been said, complacency in struggle and complacency in belief should both be eschewed if we want the shape of our lives to conform to the shape of our faith–which is, in part, why I think commitment might be a better word here than assent as it implies ongoing relationship as opposed to static acceptance.

None of that is about finding wiggle room. But all of that is about acknowledging that we are on a journey of faith–which means that until we arrive at our destination, we will always be seeing through a glass darkly.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
I am a little confused by this thread. Is it political or theological liberality being discussed here?

I consider myself to be theologically conservative, but not nearly so much politically. I am a moderate politically, and not ultra conservative.

The way I understand this thread to go it seems that one must be politically conservative to be orthodox. But to me it seems that many on the right do not have such a Christian/Catholic mind set.

It is one thing to oppose abortion and same sex “marriage”. But it is quite another to vote against health care, and funding and food for the poor.

I am poor and disabled myself, and I don’t think it’s the Christian ideal to encourage people to “pick them selves up by their bootstraps”.

I am not speaking of any individual here, but I am concerned. I live in Texas where Perry is constantly chopping at medicade, it frightens me, and so many seem to think it does not concern them so why worry?

Matter of fact Texas no longer even has medicade but have privatized it to Xerox of all people.
 
andrewstx said:
I am a little confused by this thread. Is it political or theological liberality being discussed here?

I consider myself to be theologically conservative, but not nearly so much politically. I am a moderate politically, and not ultra conservative.

The way I understand this thread to go it seems that one must be politically conservative to be orthodox. But to me it seems that many on the right do not have such a Christian/Catholic mind set.

It is one thing to oppose abortion and same sex “marriage”. But it is quite another to vote against health care, and funding and food for the poor.

I am poor and disabled myself, and I don’t think it’s the Christian ideal to encourage people to “pick them selves up by their bootstraps”.

I am not speaking of any individual here, but I am concerned. I live in Texas where Perry is constantly chopping at medicade, it frightens me, and so many seem to think it does not concern them so why worry?

Matter of fact Texas no longer even has medicade but have privatized it to Xerox of all people.
Click to expand...
I think our new Pope Francis is a good indication of what we ideally should be: personally conservative – living a chaste, simple, and spiritual life – but socially quite liberal in terms of doing good for others (and supporting gov programs that do good for others).

RE medicade, I know some children of some very poor families in Texas who are basically without any medical care at all, bec of the high medical and medicine costs. I suggested they go to Mexico a few miles away, where medicine is a lot cheaper; they were afraid due to the violence there, but I told them Progresso is OK, that we go there and there are lots of police and military protecting it.

It’s very pitiful that in such a very rich country we cannot find it in our hearts to help others.
 
lynnvinc said:
I think our new Pope Francis is a good indication of what we ideally should be: personally conservative – living a chaste, simple, and spiritual life – but socially quite liberal in terms of doing good for others (and supporting gov programs that do good for others).

It seems to me America thru the teaparty and politicos like Perry is going in the opposite direction. Perry is basically a pro-death politico in my books, and is behind some of the environmental harm of Texans. It’s a very mean-spirited, anti-truth state. I pray that somehow we become good and do good.

RE medicade, I know some children of some very poor families in Texas who are basically without any medical care at all, bec of the high medical and medicine costs. I suggested they go to Mexico a few miles away, where medicine is a lot cheaper; they were afraid due to the violence there, but I told them Progresso is OK, that we go there and there are lots of police and military protecting it.

It’s very pitiful that in such a very rich country we cannot find it in our hearts to help others.
Click to expand...
So far nobody has answered my question, but only skirted around the issue. Maybe it is because there is no such wiggle room. I do not believe this. There are many things that the Church has no stance on. Some things are a matter of discipline. Maybe a liberal catholic would prefer priests to be able to marry. They respect the authority of the Church, but hope that this discipline might be changed in the future. If they hope that women can be priests then it is not liberal, but heterodox or heretical, etc. These were the kind of examples I was looking for.

OFF TOPIC: In response to the bolded quote, in politics the liberals are not the only ones who do good for others or who want to do good for others. Both parties and both ideologies seek to help the poor and do good for others. The means are different, though. If you think that liberals are the only ones who want to help the poor then you have been mislead. This is understandable considering how things are phrased in the news.
 
yellow8yellowM said:
So far nobody has answered my question, but only skirted around the issue. Maybe it is because there is no such wiggle room. I do not believe this. There are many things that the Church has no stance on. Some things are a matter of discipline. Maybe a liberal catholic would prefer priests to be able to marry. They respect the authority of the Church, but hope that this discipline might be changed in the future. If they hope that women can be priests then it is not liberal, but heterodox or heretical, etc. These were the kind of examples I was looking for.

OFF TOPIC: In response to the bolded quote, in politics the liberals are not the only ones who do good for others or who want to do good for others. Both parties and both ideologies seek to help the poor and do good for others. The means are different, though. If you think that liberals are the only ones who want to help the poor then you have been mislead. This is understandable considering how things are phrased in the news.
Click to expand...
As far as the teachings on contraception go they are not mere disciplines, but consistent magisterial teaching, dating back to the Didache of the 1st century i believe, and accordingly, whether you believe it or not, there is no wiggle room on them. Since that is the only concrete example you gave, it is the only one we can speak to.
 
lynnvinc said:
I think our new Pope Francis is a good indication of what we ideally should be: personally conservative – living a chaste, simple, and spiritual life – but socially quite liberal in terms of doing good for others (and supporting gov programs that do good for others).

It seems to me America thru the teaparty and politicos like Perry is going in the opposite direction. Perry is basically a pro-death politico in my books, and is behind some of the environmental harm of Texans. It’s a very mean-spirited, anti-truth state. I pray that somehow we become good and do good.

RE medicade, I know some children of some very poor families in Texas who are basically without any medical care at all, bec of the high medical and medicine costs. I suggested they go to Mexico a few miles away, where medicine is a lot cheaper; they were afraid due to the violence there, but I told them Progresso is OK, that we go there and there are lots of police and military protecting it.

It’s very pitiful that in such a very rich country we cannot find it in our hearts to help others.
Click to expand...
There was an article in Thursdays Midland Reporter Telegram talking about fracking, and how they can use nearly unlimited amounts of water to frack. Meanwhile Texas is in a terrible drought. So they can use huge amounts of water make money from oil, while regular people are forbidden to use any water outdoors. So I agree about Perry seeming almost anti life. Sure it seems OK to waste money to make money for what I call the oilagarchs, but for crops for people to eat water, use has to be severely limited.

Earlier I mentioned Midland, back in the 80s they had public transport by busses, but since the busses could not turn a profit the city fathers canceled them. No such thing as a non-profit public service? Seems that public is a bad word to many Texans.

BTW there was also an article saying that the old courthouse will be demolished so the land can be sold to a private party to build a highrise with exspensive apartments. Downtown has been abandoned for years, while people with average incomes can not find a place to live they can afford.

Whenever there is an “ahl” oil boom people lose their minds, last boom they opened a Rolls Royce dealership.
 
Grace & Peace!
yellow8yellowM said:
So far nobody has answered my question, but only skirted around the issue. Maybe it is because there is no such wiggle room. I do not believe this. There are many things that the Church has no stance on. Some things are a matter of discipline. Maybe a liberal catholic would prefer priests to be able to marry. They respect the authority of the Church, but hope that this discipline might be changed in the future. If they hope that women can be priests then it is not liberal, but heterodox or heretical, etc. These were the kind of examples I was looking for.
Click to expand...
I think that if your quest is for wiggle room that you’re already off on the wrong foot. It’s not our job to find wiggle room, but we are called to apply ourselves to the teachings of the church and, when necessary, hold conscience and our commitment to those teachings in creative tension should they not be in complete accord with each other.

You’re not called to wiggle out of your commitments–you’re called to engage them faithfully. That engagement will look different depending on how your conscience has been formed, but conscience is no excuse to ignore a teaching or try to find your way out of it any more than the commitment to the teaching is an excuse to ignore your conscience. A life of faith is not a robotic parroting of particular positions to which you “must” assent, but living into a vision of life to which those particular positions are inviting you.

With the issue of women’s ordination–who is more faithful: the one who disagrees with the teaching but struggles to understand it and engage with it seriously or the one who accepts the teaching without thought? I would argue that both are being as faithful as it is given to them by God to be. I suppose you can call the former heterodox and the latter orthodox if you want, but in doing so, I think you’d be missing the point with regard to the bigger picture of faithfulness.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top