I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[papajon]

But God, in His infinite goodness and (most importantly) mercy, met me where I was.

pentecostbaby, I’d like to thank you for your post on this. I come from the opposite spectrum where I struggled with big conservative views such as the death penalty.

But your comment really stuck with me. I have many liberal Catholic family and firends, even my wife claims the middle ground, and have always wondered how they can seemingly pick and choose which Catholic beliefs in which to subscribe. But ultimately they are in the same boat as I am when it comes to being Catholic. We have all chosen to believe in God and then continue a struggle from wherever we are in life towards a life with God.

Is the key then not liberal or conservative but the journey from wherever you are towards Christ? I would think even the most Christ-like person living on earth at this very moment (I’m looking at you Fr. Matt in India! And you Fr. Don in Wisconsin!) still shares with the rest of us the same struggle to be with one with God.

 

[tuviskazinai]

**Maybe a simpler issue will illustrate my point: do you believe that raising the minimum wage is a moral issue? Think about that before you continue … If you do then you need to be able to state what the “moral” wage should be. Don’t know what it is? Do you think that simply wanting to set it to the “moral” value is of any help in determining where to set the wage? **

I am actually uneasy about raising the minimum wage, since I think it will make managers more likely to mechanize labor, consolidate positions, or impose harsh hiring qualifications, thus making jobs rarer at a time when they are needed most. But I guess that’s beside the point…

The same argument holds for health care. The debate is about how to provide the best level of care for the most people; it is not about whether or not the poor should be looked out for. The fact that you believe your health care solution will work better than (e.g.) mine doesn’t make my opposition to your proposal immoral. We do not disagree on the destination; we disagree on the means to accomplish our shared goal. We are at a fork in the road, you think we need to go left - it is not immoral of me to believe that we can arrive at our goal only by going right.

I basically agree…although I do think that many politicians’ motivations are wrong. They may claim that they advocate for certain policies because they think it’s the best way to help the poor or whatever, but often A) it’s equally likely that they really speak from a disdain for the poor and cover that up by claiming they simply have a different philosophy, or B) certain strategies seem to me so obviously necessary that I can’t help but rank them higher on a moral scale than others.

These issues exist on both sides of the fence – Republican and Democrat – and I certainly hold Democrats accountable for failing to protect the life of the unborn.

You have shown too much honesty in your previous arguments to be comfortable with this one. Don’t resort to caricature.

You are right, that was unfair of me. Many apologies! I retract it.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

So, you can vote for Obama and I can vote for McCain and we can both have a beer together afterwards, discuss our political theories, and enjoy one another. Hence your joviality, “hahaha”.

But abortion is a different category altogether. At fertilization, the only possible outcome is human being. Period. The DNA, the finger prints, the summersaults. This is not an effect of manipulating data. It is not an ideological construct.

If you’re an abortionist, for example, and I’m a teacher, we can’t go have a beer after our respective hard day’s work. You destroy the very thing I seek to cultivate. That my students’ parents wanted their children did not imbue those children with human being; desire for a child is not the thing that makes an embryo human being. Call me an essentialist, but human being precedes desire. It comes before ideology. Indeed, it comes from our Creator.

I have certain reservations to this post. I have never met an abortionist, and admittedly have no real desire to. But I wonder whether my feeling of repugnance is really Christian, really charitable. I think that the responsibility of a Christian is to look for what is beautiful in a person’s heart – to bear with one another in love, in the hopeful knowledge that everyone is more than what he is right now.

Look at Bernard Nathanson, for instance – he was one of the most prolific abortionists in the world, before having a change of heart, apparently because a couple good priests were able to show him how better to live the Gospel. But I’ll bet you that if those priests had treated him as unworthy of having a beer with them, he wouldn’t have recognized (or would have had a harder time recognizing) the Christian love they preached. And anyway, now that he is a fine pro-life leader clearly open to the truth of love, I’ll bet there are many people out there who regret having shunned him once in the past.

My point is, basically, that Jesus mingled with sinners. Why should we make an a priori judgment of a person’s value before at least trying to have a beer with him?

That’s my first reservation. My second is this: you talk about abortionists, but I think that taking an issue like this and using it as a criterion for who is and is not worthy of our company can really blind us to the value of a lot of other people too – if we disdain abortionists, what about the 1 in 3 or even 1 in 2 women around us every day who have had abortions? And if they’re not worthy of having a beer with us either, then why stop with the people who believe in a legal right to abortion, and even the pro-lifers who nonetheless try to work together with pro-choicers as much as possible, to change hearts and minds and progress together towards a more just society?

I mean, I am an essentialist too, as you describe it, but I hope that none of us are essentialists in the sense that we categorize people’s essence according to their stance on a single political or moral issue, and then exclude them from our friendship on the basis of that stance.

If I’ve misunderstood you, or if I’m being too hasty, many apologies! I am not talking about you, of course. It’s just that this is in my mind because I have known many people in my day who have let their pro-life convictions prevent them from living healthy and charitable public existences…it is always something to watch out for.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[grampben]

Look at Bernard Nathanson, for instance – he was one of the most prolific abortionists in the world, before having a change of heart, apparently because a couple good priests were able to show him how better to live the Gospel. But I’ll bet you that if those priests had treated him as unworthy of having a beer with them, he wouldn’t have recognized (or would have had a harder time recognizing) the Christian love they preached. And anyway, now that he is a fine pro-life leader clearly open to the truth of love, I’ll bet there are many people out there who regret having shunned him once in the past.

Yep, and on CAF those priests would be labelled as scathing liberals with no respect or knowledge of church teaching. Too often people forget that people can change!
Jesus calls us to make disciples. Repentant sinners already are this, so the logical conclusion is that we should evangelise the non-repentant sinners. Following the example of Jesus, it’s more effective to evangelise through actions and love than shunning them. Regardless of ones intentions it looks like self-righteousness on your part if you do shun them.

 

[RexMaximvs]

There are some problems with the preceding posts to wit:

• Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church is valid and ‘real’ however considered illegitimate due to the church being out of communion with Rome. The Eucharist is valid only if and when the priest and the bishop (s) who ordained him can trace their linage to the Apostles (Apostolic Succession). This is also true for the churches called Orthodox in many instances. Many Episcopalians don’t believe in transubstantiation and consider the Holy Eucharist as just something nice to do in memory of Christ. Many others, especially in the Southwest are actually much more catholic that Romans.
• On the abortion and vote issue it is important to see the entire quote from Cardinal Ratzinger along with comments from some of the bishops:

“A Catholic voting for a pro-abortion candidate is in mortal danger of falling into serious sin, and a Catholic who publicly supports and endorses the erroneous teaching of a pro-abortion candidate is in danger of incurring a canonical penalty, even the most severe: excommunication,” according to Bishop Gracida.

“Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) informed Catholic bishops in 2004 ‘When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. The key that is necessary to vote for a pro-abortion politician and remain in good enough standing with Our Lord to be worthy to receive Him in Holy Communion is that one must have proportionate reasons’. But, what can be considered proportionate? Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a candidate’s supporting capital punishment and war while opposing anti-abortion legislation does not provide proportionate reasons to justify voting for the pro-abortion candidate.

“It seems clear that proportionality cannot be considered as applicable where both candidates for an office support legalized abortion. If one candidate supports legalized abortion and the other does not support legalized abortion there is no way in good conscience that a Catholic can vote for a candidate who does support legalized abortion. If a voter voted for the pro-abortion candidate that voter would be guilty of a grave sin because: (1.) He takes part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, (2.) vicariously votes for it, and (3.) collaborates in its application.

“The only moral justification, invoking the principle of proportionality, to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would be if the other candidate also had a pro-abortion voting record and further promoted infanticide, embryonic stem-cell therapy or some other intrinsic evil that the preferred pro-abortion candidate did not,” according to Bishop Gracida’s statement.

"You cannot be a Roman Catholic and cast a vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Simple and blunt: Obama and Biden are in direct conflict with 2,000 years of Catholic church and in fact Christian teaching and tradition, period. Catholics who vote for them are participants in their deeds, " your humble correspondent, RexMaximvs.

 

[Ender]

And of course none of these issues seems as grave as abortion. But I believe we are at a turning point on all of these issues, and that the quality of life of billions of people over the next century could be at stake.

Right - this is the third bucket I described earlier and the one where I said you could make the strongest arguments. What I have been trying to do is separate the wheat from the chaff so we could focus on the core issue - the kernel so to speak. uch:

Most of my arguments (so far) have been around a fairly simple point: regardless of their importance, most issues are prudential, not moral. The Church has clearly condemned the immoral position on the (few) issues that are moral, stated our obligation to oppose that position, and provided guidelines to determine when that obligation may be overridden. For me, the question is whether one’s personal belief about the efficacy of specific solutions to prudential issues is sufficient to override that moral obligation.

I am actually uneasy about raising the minimum wage, since I think it will make managers more likely to mechanize labor, consolidate positions, or impose harsh hiring qualifications, thus making jobs rarer at a time when they are needed most. But I guess that’s beside the point…

No, this is exactly the point. Unlike moral issues, our positions on prudential issues are best guesses where the law of unintended consequences plays a huge role.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Ender"The bishops had made the tactical decision not to press this issue as they believe it would do more harm than good. I think they are reassessing that decision."
So did I make a “tactical decision” to not do more harm than good.

Perhaps - I have no way to know how or why you arrived at your decision. If so, though, I think your decision was - like the bishops’ - incorrect.

Ender

 

[Trader]

There are some problems with the preceding posts to wit:

• Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church is valid and ‘real’ however considered illegitimate due to the church being out of communion with Rome. The Eucharist is valid only if and when the priest and the bishop (s) who ordained him can trace their linage to the Apostles (Apostolic Succession). This is also true for the churches called Orthodox in many instances. Many Episcopalians don’t believe in transubstantiation and consider the Holy Eucharist as just something nice to do in memory of Christ. Many others, especially in the Southwest are actually much more catholic that Romans.
• On the abortion and vote issue it is important to see the entire quote from Cardinal Ratzinger along with comments from some of the bishops:

“A Catholic voting for a pro-abortion candidate is in mortal danger of falling into serious sin, and a Catholic who publicly supports and endorses the erroneous teaching of a pro-abortion candidate is in danger of incurring a canonical penalty, even the most severe: excommunication,” according to Bishop Gracida.

“Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) informed Catholic bishops in 2004 ‘When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. The key that is necessary to vote for a pro-abortion politician and remain in good enough standing with Our Lord to be worthy to receive Him in Holy Communion is that one must have proportionate reasons’. But, what can be considered proportionate? Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a candidate’s supporting capital punishment and war while opposing anti-abortion legislation does not provide proportionate reasons to justify voting for the pro-abortion candidate.

“It seems clear that proportionality cannot be considered as applicable where both candidates for an office support legalized abortion. If one candidate supports legalized abortion and the other does not support legalized abortion there is no way in good conscience that a Catholic can vote for a candidate who does support legalized abortion. If a voter voted for the pro-abortion candidate that voter would be guilty of a grave sin because: (1.) He takes part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, (2.) vicariously votes for it, and (3.) collaborates in its application.

“The only moral justification, invoking the principle of proportionality, to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would be if the other candidate also had a pro-abortion voting record and further promoted infanticide, embryonic stem-cell therapy or some other intrinsic evil that the preferred pro-abortion candidate did not,” according to Bishop Gracida’s statement.

"You cannot be a Roman Catholic and cast a vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Simple and blunt: Obama and Biden are in direct conflict with 2,000 years of Catholic church and in fact Christian teaching and tradition, period. Catholics who vote for them are participants in their deeds, " your humble correspondent, RexMaximvs.

I agree with you down the line on this post, and really hate make one addition that may be considered a loophole by some.

After nearly 60 years of breathing American air in a family whose first immigrants held political office, I have to point out that politicians sometimes tell less than the whole truth in the heat of a campaign. (Less politically correct, they lie a lot ) Because a candidate says he is pro-life or pro-abortion or pro-choice does not necessarily determine who a faithful Catholic can vote for. We still have to make a prudential judgement on what the candidate will actually do if elected. That is not so simple. You may remember a candidate who claimed to be anti-abortion, but also signed into law the most permissive abortion law of his time as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

 

[Augustin83008]

If I’ve misunderstood you, or if I’m being too hasty, many apologies!

No apology necessary, but you have misunderstood. Profoundly.

Blessings, all.

 

[tuviskazinai]

There are some problems with the preceding posts to wit:

• Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church is valid and ‘real’ however considered illegitimate due to the church being out of communion with Rome. The Eucharist is valid only if and when the priest and the bishop (s) who ordained him can trace their linage to the Apostles (Apostolic Succession). This is also true for the churches called Orthodox in many instances. Many Episcopalians don’t believe in transubstantiation and consider the Holy Eucharist as just something nice to do in memory of Christ. Many others, especially in the Southwest are actually much more catholic that Romans.
• On the abortion and vote issue it is important to see the entire quote from Cardinal Ratzinger along with comments from some of the bishops:

“A Catholic voting for a pro-abortion candidate is in mortal danger of falling into serious sin, and a Catholic who publicly supports and endorses the erroneous teaching of a pro-abortion candidate is in danger of incurring a canonical penalty, even the most severe: excommunication,” according to Bishop Gracida.

“Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) informed Catholic bishops in 2004 ‘When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons. The key that is necessary to vote for a pro-abortion politician and remain in good enough standing with Our Lord to be worthy to receive Him in Holy Communion is that one must have proportionate reasons’. But, what can be considered proportionate? Cardinal Ratzinger stated that a candidate’s supporting capital punishment and war while opposing anti-abortion legislation does not provide proportionate reasons to justify voting for the pro-abortion candidate.

“It seems clear that proportionality cannot be considered as applicable where both candidates for an office support legalized abortion. If one candidate supports legalized abortion and the other does not support legalized abortion there is no way in good conscience that a Catholic can vote for a candidate who does support legalized abortion. If a voter voted for the pro-abortion candidate that voter would be guilty of a grave sin because: (1.) He takes part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, (2.) vicariously votes for it, and (3.) collaborates in its application.

“The only moral justification, invoking the principle of proportionality, to vote for a pro-abortion candidate would be if the other candidate also had a pro-abortion voting record and further promoted infanticide, embryonic stem-cell therapy or some other intrinsic evil that the preferred pro-abortion candidate did not,” according to Bishop Gracida’s statement.

"You cannot be a Roman Catholic and cast a vote for Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Simple and blunt: Obama and Biden are in direct conflict with 2,000 years of Catholic church and in fact Christian teaching and tradition, period. Catholics who vote for them are participants in their deeds, " your humble correspondent, RexMaximvs.

Thanks for giving us this quote in context!

I guess, to be honest, I simply disagree with Bishop Gracida. I think he’s wrong, and I’ll go further – I think it’s slightly irresponsible of him to pretend that anyone who supports Obama does so because of a straw man issue like capital punishment (which I would never pretend is proportionate to abortion).

I say this with great sadness and respect, but also with the knowledge that he is only human, after all, just as we all are.

But I am not the only one who disagrees – several, in fact most, other bishops have said explicitly that it is not necessarily a sin to vote for Obama. So who is one to believe? The statement you’ve quoted is powerful, but it does not come from high enough up in the Magisterium to override one’s conscience.

A final side note: I’m glad you brought up embryonic stem cell research. McCain has supported federal funding for it. I know that Obama has too, but it’s just one more fact that leads me to doubt his true commitment to the pro-life cause, and I wish I’d brought it up earlier.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

Right - this is the third bucket I described earlier and the one where I said you could make the strongest arguments. What I have been trying to do is separate the wheat from the chaff so we could focus on the core issue - the kernel so to speak. uch:

Ah, gotcha. Yes, I have difficulties sometimes keeping focused!!

(I like that emoticon very much, by the way.)

Most of my arguments (so far) have been around a fairly simple point: regardless of their importance, most issues are prudential, not moral. The Church has clearly condemned the immoral position on the (few) issues that are moral, stated our obligation to oppose that position, and provided guidelines to determine when that obligation may be overridden. For me, the question is whether one’s personal belief about the efficacy of specific solutions to prudential issues is sufficient to override that moral obligation.

Very well put.

And so I guess your answer to that question is no, just as I would say that mine is yes? Because the prudential-moral distinction is good to a point, but in the end becomes a false dichotomy, because I would say that the moral thing can sometimes be to do what is prudential.

Maybe I could put it this way: if I had to choose a church, Church A or Church B (in a world where the perfect church, Catholicism, didn’t exist!), and one church taught that abortion was wrong but that a number of rather dubious political approaches to certain problems were permissible…and another church taught that abortion was perfectly fine but had a shrewder, more reasonable approach to those same other problems…I would choose the first church, because its moral teaching was truer (that’s what’s important) and because even if it allowed prudential choices that I am opposed to in the secular/legal/political realm, it would also allow me to make other prudential choices such as I saw fit.

And so as moral theologians, yes, I think the bishops are much better guides than Obama! Needless to say.

But when I vote for a candidate…well, the church does not govern, and a president does not teach moral philosophy. (Obviously he sets a public example, and so on and so forth, but I would still say his primary responsibility is to govern.) So I need to pick the person I think will govern best. Between Obama and McCain, I might therefore pick Obama.

Choosing a “church” / informing one’s conscience is just fundamentally different from choosing a president / prudentially seeking the common good. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…

Interesting final comment, though: if any of the bishops were running for president, I would vote for him rather than Obama. Why? Well, when you got down to it, I think that with the crucial exception of abortion, they would be more likely to govern like Obama would than like McCain would!

I don’t know if these thought experiments are useful…I am running out to meet friends and so my hasty logic might be more full of holes than usual…! Fire away.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

No apology necessary, but you have misunderstood. Profoundly.

Blessings, all.

I thank you for your forgiveness, and will try to be more understanding the next time! I have had some sad experiences in the past when a church community of mine was split into viciously competing factions over their approach to pro-life evangelism, so I guess I am sometimes a little over-sensitive on this issue.

+AMDG+

 

[mchebert630]

I am a relatively liberal person, and a Catholic. Sometimes this does present problems in the faith. But here is what I have learned in my struggles:

1. Belief does not begin with homosexuality and abortion. Yes, these are important teachings, but belief begins with God and Christ. You proceed from there. No one should be deterred from seeking faith because of abortion or homosexuality. Understand Christ and his teachings, and proceed from there.
2. Faith is a journey. At the moment of baptism, few people have a fully formed faith. Be patient with the Church’s teachings, even if you don’t understand them. Deeper understanding comes with time, and confusion and disagreement can be par for the course.
3. Remember that the truth is what is, not what you want it to be. One of the things that paradoxically strengthens my faith is the realization that what I find to be the truth is not always what I want the truth to be. If the truth always turned out to be what I want it to be, I would doubt my faith more. The truth should be hard to stomach sometimes. Otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the trouble.
4. God might throw obstacles in your path, but He will not lead you astray. If you are being called to inspect the Catholic faith, then you must do so. You are being called, and your duty is response. As long as you search honestly and with a pure heart, and accept setbacks with patience, you will find what you seek.
5. Don’t let anyone force feed you the catechism. Learn the faith at your own pace, accepting what you can, questioning what you must. Conversion takes time. Most of all, enjoy the process. You can only be an acolyte once, and the experience is one to cherish.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

I am a relatively liberal person, and a Catholic. Sometimes this does present problems in the faith. But here is what I have learned in my struggles:

1. Belief does not begin with homosexuality and abortion. Yes, these are important teachings, but belief begins with God and Christ. You proceed from there. No one should be deterred from seeking faith because of abortion or homosexuality. Understand Christ and his teachings, and proceed from there.
2. Faith is a journey. At the moment of baptism, few people have a fully formed faith. Be patient with the Church’s teachings, even if you don’t understand them. Deeper understanding comes with time, and confusion and disagreement can be par for the course.
3. Remember that the truth is what is, not what you want it to be. One of the things that paradoxically strengthens my faith is the realization that what I find to be the truth is not always what I want the truth to be. If the truth always turned out to be what I want it to be, I would doubt my faith more. The truth should be hard to stomach sometimes. Otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the trouble.
4. God might throw obstacles in your path, but He will not lead you astray. If you are being called to inspect the Catholic faith, then you must do so. You are being called, and your duty is response. As long as you search honestly and with a pure heart, and accept setbacks with patience, you will find what you seek.
5. Don’t let anyone force feed you the catechism. Learn the faith at your own pace, accepting what you can, questioning what you must. Conversion takes time. Most of all, enjoy the process. You can only be an acolyte once, and the experience is one to cherish.

Thank you. As an update…I’ve decided to convert. I’m in the process of choosing a parish so that I can start RCIA.

 

[Janet_S]

. You may remember a candidate who claimed to be anti-abortion, but also signed into law the most permissive abortion law of his time as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan.

You have to look at this isue in the context of the time. Reagan was governor of CA before Roe vs Wade. He wasn’t elected as a “pro-life” governor because the terms “pro-life” and “pro-choice” were not terms anyone used then. Abortion was for the most part a non-issue, as it was outlawed in almost every state. New York, California, Alaska, maybe a few other states allowed it, but that was it. So if what you are claiming is that Reagan ran “pro-life,” fooled everyone, and voted for abortion, that’s not what happened. And also another thing to keep in mind, Reagan changed his mind about abortion. People are allowed to do that.

 

[Janet_S]

Thank you. As an update…I’ve decided to convert. I’m in the process of choosing a parish so that I can start RCIA.

Congratulations! The Catholic Church is the pearl of great price.

 

[estesbob]

Thank you. As an update…I’ve decided to convert. I’m in the process of choosing a parish so that I can start RCIA.

OUTSTANDING!

 

[MarkInOregon]

Hi all!

This has become a stumbling block for me. Part of me is really interested in becoming Catholic because a lot of the theology makes sense, but the other part of me is terrified of conservative clergy. I’m having a very hard time differentiating what is peoples opinions and what is the actual teaching of the Church.

First: If you wish to find out what the Catholic Church “really” teaches I would suggest getting a Catechism of the Catholic Church and reading it for starters. Then to address the questions you have I would suggest the Catholic Answers apologist phone line as a good resource.
Second: I don’t think one should not join a Church because “a lot” of its theology makes sense any more than one should join a church because you like the preacher or because it has a good band or dazzling multi-media presentation. Rather one should be on a quest for the truth and when one finds the truth–one should do their best to live that truth. To often today people are looking for a church that affirms their beliefs–rather than looking for the truth and conforming their beliefs to the truth. It sounds like you may be on a quest for the truth and I pray you continue your study and investigation of the Catholic Church. If you do I believe you will find the truth you are looking for in the Catholic Church. Now living that truth in todays secular western culture can be a challenge and at times may make you feel like an outcast–but no one promised it would be easy. Often doing the right thing is not easy.
To echo what someone else said I don’t find the labels conservative or liberal very useful either. I consider myself Catholic and I think that may make me “conservative” on some issues and may make me “liberal” on some other issues but I dislike those tems. I simply try to be a faithful Catholic.

Peace of Christ,
Mark

 

[pinoyjones]

I spoke to my Bishop about this incident. A priest in our diocese was going around saying this very thing. The bishop was very angry that he said this because you can not sin if you don’t have the intent to do wrong. Most people voted for Obama because of the economic down turn and the position on the war, not because he was pro choice. If you voted for him only on the basis that he was pro choice and you knew that this was wrong, then it may be a mortal sin. So It would not necessarily be a sin, hope to see you as a member of our family soon!!

 

[tuviskazinai]

I am a relatively liberal person, and a Catholic. Sometimes this does present problems in the faith. But here is what I have learned in my struggles:

1. Belief does not begin with homosexuality and abortion. Yes, these are important teachings, but belief begins with God and Christ. You proceed from there. No one should be deterred from seeking faith because of abortion or homosexuality. Understand Christ and his teachings, and proceed from there.
2. Faith is a journey. At the moment of baptism, few people have a fully formed faith. Be patient with the Church’s teachings, even if you don’t understand them. Deeper understanding comes with time, and confusion and disagreement can be par for the course.
3. Remember that the truth is what is, not what you want it to be. One of the things that paradoxically strengthens my faith is the realization that what I find to be the truth is not always what I want the truth to be. If the truth always turned out to be what I want it to be, I would doubt my faith more. The truth should be hard to stomach sometimes. Otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the trouble.
4. God might throw obstacles in your path, but He will not lead you astray. If you are being called to inspect the Catholic faith, then you must do so. You are being called, and your duty is response. As long as you search honestly and with a pure heart, and accept setbacks with patience, you will find what you seek.
5. Don’t let anyone force feed you the catechism. Learn the faith at your own pace, accepting what you can, questioning what you must. Conversion takes time. Most of all, enjoy the process. You can only be an acolyte once, and the experience is one to cherish.

Bravo on all five points! And thank you…this was beautifully and thoughtfully put.