I'm very liberal, considering Catholicism.

[tuviskazinai]

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.

That’s fantastic! Remember, if you ever need advice, we are always here to give you a clear, unbiased, uncontroversial, and unanimous consensus.
…Or if not that, then stimulating discussion, anyway – which is what it’s all about.
But seriously, welcome! Many, many congratulations, and blessings on your way. Please keep us updated on your journey! I’m sure we would all love to hear from you.
God bless.
+AMDG+

 

[Trader]

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.

What I meant to say was that Reagan ran for President as anti-abortion with a mixed record on the issue. I did not mean that he lied on the issue in running for governor. You are correct on the time frame. When Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter he had a mixed record and Jimmy Carter did not. I voted for Carter. When Reagan ran against Dukakis four years later he had a better history on abortion than his Democrat opponent. All I was saying is that a prudent voter has to consider more than what a candidate says, and I believe actons speak louder than words.

Certainly a candidate can change his mind on an issue. We pray for that daily with the current president elect.

If you can tolerate even more cynicism, a politician with few core values ie., Bill Clinton, can be less dangerous because he can be convinced to change his mind easily if he is shown enough polls on the issue. Hilary Clinton scared me a lot more than Bill did. Voting is a serious and complex responsibility. I was very proud of the numerous bishops who spoke the truth about the issues without telling us who to vote for. Personally, I had no trouble deciding that I could not for Senator Obama, but I would never say that everyone who did was guilty of mortal sin.

I was shocked by how many people who consider themselves pro-life did not know Obama’s position on the issue. On the other hand, every pro-choice person I talked to knew Obama’s position.

 

[pinoyjones]

As for being concerned about your beliefs being different from the Church, we have all had our moments we doubted the Church. I have found that 100% of the time if you look into the reason of their teachings in a very logical way, you will find that there teachings made sense much more than mine did, usually because my opinion was based on popular opinion. You may not agree at first, but be obedient to the Church and I guarantee you will not be let down.

 

[pinoyjones]

The Holy Eucharist in the Episcopal Church cannot be valid because the ordaination of the priest is not valid

How can the Eucharist be real if they don’t believe in Transsubstantiation. It may be real bread, but the body of Christ itis not. If the Roman Church saw it to be valid we could receive communion, but we cannot because we would be giving validity to a false teaching.

Many Episcopal members are very Catholic and they are the ones who are considering converting or is requesting full communion with the Church.

You did some good research but your interpretation may be in error

 

[phil8888]

I second this. Although I would love for you to embrace the truth of the Catholic faith, I feel that the Episcopal faith would be easier for you to accept because it is far more liberal than the Catholic faith. Make no mistake, being Catholic in the modern world is extremely difficult. We are different than the rest of society and are held to a far greater moral standard. Our beliefs are offensive to many people. However, our doctrines and beliefs will never change. Liberal theologians and clergy have tried to change the faith over the last forty years but they have failed. The Church will never compromise with the modern worldview. If you hold “liberal” views, you will find the Catholic faith difficult to embrace. However, I encourage you to re-examine your beliefs and pray to God for guidance.

Perhaps you disagree, but I do not believe it is wise to counsel someone to become a member of a non-Catholic Christian community, especially if that person is seeking possible membership with the Catholic Church. We believe that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ, and therefore we cannot recommend they attend another church which split away from the true church.

You must deal with specific issues rather than saying Liberal or Conservative. The Catholic Church allows people to decide many things on their own. For example, gun control. Also, the Catholic Church tends to be against the death penalty, but that’s a personal choice, as is war. The Catholic church has guidelines for just war, but you are not forced to believe one way or another on a particular battle. In many ways the Catholic Church would be deemed more “liberal” in certain areas. In areas where you struggle, please investigate further.

 

[Ender]

The bishop was very angry that he said this because you can not sin if you don’t have the intent to do wrong.

I know this is a bit off topic, but this statement is not correct: one can most certainly sin even without intending to. Every abortion (for example) is a sinful act regardless of ones intentions. The degree of our culpability may be mitigated by our intentions but sinful acts do not become sinless simply because we believe them to be so.

Ender

 

[Memaw]

In the for-what-it’s-worth department I’m in the same boat. I would love to become Catholic but I feel like I could never be an acceptable member of the Catholic community because of some of my political beliefs. So it’s not just you .

You have to decide what is most important to you, God’s will or yours. These political people etc, will pass into history, GOD won’t. A year or two from now, your opinion of these people and their ideas may change but God never changes. Christ’s Church and His Sacraments should be the most important thing in our lives. Only then can we be free to love as we should. Thats real freedom! God Bless, Memaw

 

[BigRedpg51]

If you truly want to follow what is taught by the one true Church established by Jesus Christ, then you had best set your mind on following it. If the Catholic Church says it’s wrong and sinful to vote for a pro-death politician (because by doing so you will be giving support to those factions who do not respect the sanctity of human life) – then it’s wrong and sinful. Period.

If you wish to join the Catholic Church simply because it would make you “feel good” or because it is the largest Christian religious group in the world…you should not join. Your motives would be wrong.

If, however, you wish to join the Catholic Church because you have come to the recognization that it is the one true Church established by Jesus Christ, then you are most welcome – and, for the good of your soul (and those whom you might influence), you should be willing to put your liberal ideas aside whenever they contradict the teachings of the Catholic Church.

My suggestion to you is…first, figure out why you want to join the Catholic Church.

God bless you in your search!
John

 

[pinoyjones]

This is the response to ender regarding what it is to sin. You have to know that something is sinful and do it anyway. This is the intent to do wrong. It is our responsibility to inform our conscience so eternal ignorance is not an excuse. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, but if someone has not had the formation of their conscience to know it is wrong(which in this country is very rare), they can not be held accountable.

 

[seekdatruth]

I like this answer from AAA:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=270498&highlight=liberal

 

[seekdatruth]

Especially this line:
“care must be taken not to reduce complex human beings to the sum of the labels they bear or to unjustly condemn them on the sole basis of labels they either accept or are given.”

 

[Augustin83008]

I guess, to be honest, I simply disagree with Bishop Gracida. I think he’s wrong… 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.

Is that what the CCC teaches us about our bishops: they’re just like me, so I’m fully empowered to set my opinions against and/or above theirs?

I’m sincerely asking and not trying to be a twit.

When I read what’s been said (by Ratzinger and the bishops) about pro-abortion voting, I just don’t see any of the confusion and ambiguity you’re appealing to. I’m trying… but the Church’s mind on this seems pretty clear.

Best,
s

 

[Augustin83008]

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…

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…

…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.

…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.

This should probably go in a thread of its own: if so, apologies, but here’s what I’m thinking:

Jesus mingled with sinners. Does that mean, then, that the only authentic response to sin is love, charity, and looking for the beauty in someone’s heart?

I hear that sentiment alot, ie, Christians are supposed to embrace people, period. No matter what. The trouble is that I can’t seem to square that with my reading of the Bible or the Fathers.

On the one hand, no serious Christian takes love and charity for granted; there is a legitimate distinction to be made between a sinner and sin, and every serious Christian understands what effect a loving embrace can have on a hurting person.

But this notion that any person involved in anything sinful, regardless of the nature of the sin, must only ever be embraced by Christians doesn’t really jive with Paul’s incredibly harsh condemnations of those involved in all kinds of sin, for example. The New Testament is not thin on example. The same condemnations abound in Augustine, Clement, and a half-dozen others I’ve been reading.

So, love and charity—yes, by all means let’s love one another and demonstrate God’s superabundant love to all. But let’s not do so at the expense of the truth, which is that quite often we have a responsibility to stand against evil and hold people accountable for the pain and suffering they inflict on others (including their Creator and Redeemer). You have a responsibility to hold me accountable. This is plainly evident in the Bible, the Fathers, and the CCC.

When I lived for a decade or so as a functional atheist and enthusiastic sinner, I can tell you that my Christian friends’ embrace never once gave me pause to consider the gravity of my sinful life. Sometimes (often) people need an unambiguous, “Stop!” Christian friends would pat me on the back, love on me, and out I’d go to ruin myself and others. Loving on people is often not the proper Christian response to their lives, and we need to be clear and honest about that, especially when it comes to issues like abortion.

Seems like.

Peace,
s

 

[tuviskazinai]

**This should probably go in a thread of its own: **

haha…I probably should have said the same thing for every single one of my responses over the last few weeks.

**Jesus mingled with sinners. Does that mean, then, that the only authentic response to sin is love, charity, and looking for the beauty in someone’s heart?

I hear that sentiment alot, ie, Christians are supposed to embrace people, period. No matter what. The trouble is that I can’t seem to square that with my reading of the Bible or the Fathers.

On the one hand, no serious Christian takes love and charity for granted; there is a legitimate distinction to be made between a sinner and sin, and every serious Christian understands what effect a loving embrace can have on a hurting person.

But this notion that any person involved in anything sinful, regardless of the nature of the sin, must only ever be embraced by Christians doesn’t really jive with Paul’s incredibly harsh condemnations of those involved in all kinds of sin, for example. The New Testament is not thin on example. The same condemnations abound in Augustine, Clement, and a half-dozen others I’ve been reading.**

I think this is really interesting…a very good point. Actually, maybe it would be worth moving to a different thread (so as also to bring in new voices). Also, I’d be interested if you had some citations from Augustine, Clement, and the others…

To your first question I’d say yes, the only authentic response is to love, but you’re probably right that there are different ways to do that. Sometimes tough love is called for, sometimes a closer sort of friendship. In response to this next part, for example ----->

**
So, love and charity—yes, by all means let’s love one another and demonstrate God’s superabundant love to all. But let’s not do so at the expense of the truth, which is that quite often we have a responsibility to stand against evil and hold people accountable for the pain and suffering they inflict on others (including their Creator and Redeemer). You have a responsibility to hold me accountable. This is plainly evident in the Bible, the Fathers, and the CCC.

When I lived for a decade or so as a functional atheist and enthusiastic sinner, I can tell you that my Christian friends’ embrace never once gave me pause to consider the gravity of my sinful life. Sometimes (often) people need an unambiguous, “Stop!” Christian friends would pat me on the back, love on me, and out I’d go to ruin myself and others. Loving on people is often not the proper Christian response to their lives, and we need to be clear and honest about that, especially when it comes to issues like abortion. **

<----- …it sounds like thankfully you got the unambiguous “stop” you needed, though one can never generalize: other people need a “nicer” form of kindness, a validation of their humanity, a willingness to listen to their feelings or their anger or whatever, etc.

So I guess what I’d say is that to everything there is a season, and I hesitate to say once and for all that I would never have a beer with an abortionist, because that kind of generalization bases our relationships with other human beings on some sort of rigid formula or code, rather than an honest attempt to listen and discern what’s best – what’s most loving – for a given person in a given moment.

Does that make sense? I’m glad you posted this, though…gives me a lot to think about.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Ender]

This is the response to ender regarding what it is to sin. You have to know that something is sinful and do it anyway. This is the intent to do wrong. It is our responsibility to inform our conscience so eternal ignorance is not an excuse. Abortion is an intrinsic evil, but if someone has not had the formation of their conscience to know it is wrong(which in this country is very rare), they can not be held accountable.

Sin is not entirely dependent on intent; we can sin even with the best of intentions. Think about the number of Catholics who use birth control. Most know that the Church teaches that it is wrong but believe in their hearts that it is not; that is, they don’t believe they are sinning. Do you believe that their actions are not sinful simply because they believe them to be right?

We bear some responsibility for the sins of others where we entice them into sin or fail in our obligation to keep them from sinning but - according to your definition - there would be one way to ensure that children never sin: teach them that nothing they do is sinful. Since they would never believe that anything they did was wrong they could never sin - or at least never be held accountable. Isn’t that the consequence of your definition?

I do distinguish between sin and culpability in that a person can sin and not be held accountable but it is not personal intent alone that determines either the sinfullness of the action or the culpability of the actor.

Ender

 

[tuviskazinai]

Is that what the CCC teaches us about our bishops: they’re just like me, so I’m fully empowered to set my opinions against and/or above theirs?

I’m sincerely asking and not trying to be a twit.

When I read what’s been said (by Ratzinger and the bishops) about pro-abortion voting, I just don’t see any of the confusion and ambiguity you’re appealing to. I’m trying… but the Church’s mind on this seems pretty clear.

I think this is an excellent question too – I appreciate the sincerity, no presumptions of twit-hood.

No, I don’t believe that the CCC teaches us that we can put our own opinions “above” theirs, but I do think the CCC would admit that we are allowed to have our own opinions alongside theirs on certain matters.

I guess that now I have to take a page from Ender’s book: I think this is a matter of prudence. I fully agree with the bishops’ set of values (and if I didn’t, then I would have to put my own aside and trust them on it), but we have a different vision of the best way to enact that more Christian society that we all believe in. It’s a prudential decision – and I don’t think their being bishops means they will always make the right prudential decisions, especially since the Magisterium says so little about cases like this. (I mean, really, all of their comments are stemming from one sentence in a minor speech of Ratzinger’s…it’s not exactly the whole of Catholic tradition that is telling us how to weigh votes in the civic sphere.)

Of course, maybe this makes it sound as though I am being flippant about their leadership. I am not. This vote was one of the hardest decisions of my life, no question, and obviously just the fact that it was hard doesn’t mean I’m exempt from responsibility, but I think it needs to be said.

Lastly, I am very wary of wielding the term “the Church” so broadly. If the Pope said explicitly that I must vote for John McCain, that would be one thing. If there were an encyclical saying that no pro-choice candidate can ever be elected, under any circumstances, that would be one thing. And if a bishop said that I must abide by such-and-such a local request pertaining to his diocesan jurisdiction, that would be one thing. But I don’t believe – both as a citizen but, more accurately, as a Catholic – that it is the bishops’ role to tell me who to vote for. I’m not being snippish – they do have the job of informing my conscience, and I appreciate that greatly – but I don’t think I am under any compunction to translate that into a particular vote.

Believe me, I took their advice under serious consideration, and I will stand before God on Judgment Day to answer for my decision, but like I’ve said before, if bishops were “infallible,” as we seem to be expected to believe here, then why didn’t all the bishops speak up as loudly as some of their colleagues did, and why did almost all of them (with the exception of two or three) stop short of saying that we were not allowed to vote for Obama?

I don’t like contradicting them on anything, and I rarely do or would. But since there is no Magisterial obligation on me to follow their lead, to the letter, on matters such as this, I simply have to admit to myself, as a thinking individual, that they are not super-heroes, we are all human, we have a difference in opinion on this one, and that is perfectly ok, as long as this (admittedly, risky and rare) divergence from their consensus is informed by fervent prayer and discernment. Plus, like I’ve said, I have tried to internalize their teachings in other ways so as not to just disregard them: even if I didn’t vote for McCain, I have taken this as an opportunity to get myself to do more pro-life stuff than I have been doing lately…

Thoughts? I hope this does not sound too prideful! But don’t be afraid to say so if you think it does…I welcome the opportunity to think this through with people.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Ender]

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.

This I think is the basis on which those who voted for Obama justified their action. I know there are other reasons (McCain’s personal flaws, doubts about his effectiveness) but this is the one that has to fly so let’s just focus on this.

“The moral thing can sometimes be to do what is prudential.” I think another way to phrase this is the ends justify the means. I know that’s not how you mean it but I think that is the result of your thinking. You are willing to accept the less moral approach if the results are “better.” I don’t think it is ever false to compare the moral approach with the pragmatic one nor do I think it better to choose the pragmatic one at the expense of what is moral.

Ender

 

[Augustin83008]

Thoughts? …I welcome the opportunity to think this through with people.

I think you’re being honest and candid, which says a lot. You’re right about being free—and thank God our shepherds don’t tell us who to vote for, ie, don’t micromanage. I just can’t help, while reading your words, imagining the first century—the first Christians—saying of the apostles, ‘Well, honestly, they’re only human and, after all, I’m free…’ I don’t know… there’s just something about that sentiment that feels alarmingly incomplete.

Look, I’m no Catholic expert but a simple convert and deeply in love with this Church of ours, her leadership, her light. I think I hear you right, and I think I get where you’re coming from; you just say it in a way that makes me stop and pray for unity, pray for our bishops, and pray for us, their sheep.

Best,
s

 

[tuviskazinai]

“The moral thing can sometimes be to do what is prudential.” I think another way to phrase this is the ends justify the means. I know that’s not how you mean it but I think that is the result of your thinking. You are willing to accept the less moral approach if the results are “better.” I don’t think it is ever false to compare the moral approach with the pragmatic one nor do I think it better to choose the pragmatic one at the expense of what is moral.

I think that’s a really good point. I’d agree with you: essentially what I’m arguing is that in this case, the ends justify the means.

And you’re right that that can be a dangerous precedent to set…I certainly wouldn’t adopt it for just any situation. But because in this case I don’t think that one side is completely moral and the other side completely immoral – because I believe that each side has its own serious pros and cons – I view this as a case of “double effect,” like in Thomas Aquinas, who says that sometimes it is permissible to cause serious harm as a side effect of bringing about a significantly good end.

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[Nino]

words words words…'conservative’means for the status quo…which since FDR has been towards a fascist secular anti-Christian state…Liberal in the classic sense…is one who is for individual freedom as long as it does not hurt anyone else…The RCC is in direct line from its Founder…Jesus the Christ! Jesus was never PC thus a liberal …yet by todays deftiniton he would be called a right wing kook…one who is for the ten commandments and thus not in lockstep with either major party nor their wagging tales…the media!!! Whats the big deal…notice how those media darlings of hollyweird usually end up dead before their time…all stoned and unhappy…for as they got older they realized,too late.that the wagon they hitched their horse to ,has lead them to the hot place and I dont mean Florida! The RCC is out of step for it has values and standards that go back to antiquity…family,children,helping the needy,faithfulness and integrity etc etc…dont want to shock you…but Jesus was largely ignored by the powers that be till He held up that coin and declared…worship the things that belong to God…and be a good citizen for the state…but each,tho on the same coin were on opposite sides…thus we are hated…we RCC will NEVER worship the state so we are more and more persecuted as our brothers and sisters are in China,Cuba and other liberated joints…Nino