Liberal Catholic?

[october_baby]

Thanks for proving Rick Warren’s point.

Jim

so the smart remark post was to say that orthodoxy is being “fundamentalist”? And
assuming from your tone that’s a bad thing?

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I wasn’t referring to anyone being “liberal”. I was referring to a poster who quoted Rick Warren, my comment to the poster(who I think was saying he/she was liberal) was with
all the resources from the catholic church, why quote a protestant huckster.

OK, I must have missed something then, because I thought the reason we were listening to Warren was his take on what “liberal” means. If that was the case, then it wouldn’t make sense to offer the doctors of the Church as better sources, if they don’t speak to the issue of what “liberal” meant.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

so the smart remark post was to say that orthodoxy is being “fundamentalist”? And
assuming from your tone that’s a bad thing?

I thought it was about being closed to new learning. If someone can only defend existing point of view and not honestly consider there may be More to the Story.

1 Cor 8:2
If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.

Alan

 

[october_baby]

I thought it was about being closed to new learning. If someone can only defend existing point of view and not honestly consider there may be More to the Story.

1 Cor 8:2
If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know.

Alan

so your point is there is no need for orthodoxcy (sorry, my spell check isn’t working.)
better tell G.K. Chesterton and the church fathers!

 

[PRmerger]

As a number of Vatican II documents and the CCC itself proclaim, the Catholic faith is not a checklist of propositional statements. As Dei Verbum points out, it’s fundamentally about having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ through the sacraments, and therefore experiential and is in dialogue with God. This is how our current Holy Father described it after the council:
“as a totality, in which word and event make up one whole, a true dialogue which touches man in his totality, not only challenging his reason, but, as dialogue, addressing him as a partner, indeed giving him his true nature for the first time.”

To have a true relationship with Christ, I believe that we must be honest with ourselves about one’s conflicts with Church teachings. That being said, I think it is critical that Catholics attend closely to the teachings of the Magisterium, particularly on doctrinal matters.

I think it is important to point out that the language that Catholics must closely “attend to” the teachings of the Magisterium was the language that was adopted over the previously rejected language pushed by the Curia, which said that Catholics must “conform to” those teachings.

Here is some language from V2 that better describes what I’m saying:
*
Aposolicam Actuositatem*
*Our own times require of the laity no less zeal: in fact, modern conditions demand that their apostolate be broadened and intensified. With a constantly increasing population, continual progress in science and technology, and closer interpersonal relationships, the areas for the lay apostolate have been immensely widened particularly in fields that have been for the most part open to the laity alone. These factors have also occasioned new problems which demand their expert attention and study. This apostolate becomes more imperative in view of the fact that many areas of human life have become increasingly autonomous. This is as it should be, but it sometimes involves a degree of departure from the ethical and religious order and a serious danger to Christian life. Besides, in many places where priests are very few or, in some instances, deprived of due freedom for priestly work, the Church could scarcely exist and function without the activity of the laity.

An indication of this manifold and pressing need is the unmistakable work being done today by the Holy Spirit in making the laity ever more conscious of their own responsibility and encouraging them to serve Christ and the Church in all circumstances.*

Dignitatis humanae (a document notable for its condemnation by Archbishop Lefebvre and the Society of Pope Pius X)
"In the formation of their consciences, the Christian faithful ought carefully to attend to the sacred and certain doctrine of the Church.(35) For the Church is, by the will of Christ, the teacher of the truth. It is her duty to give utterance to, and authoritatively to teach, that truth which is Christ Himself, and also to declare and confirm by her authority those principles of the moral order which have their origins in human nature itself. Furthermore, let Christians walk in wisdom in the face of those outside, “in the Holy Spirit, in unaffected love, in the word of truth” (2 Cor. 6:6-7), and let them be about their task of spreading the light of life with all confidence(36) and apostolic courage, even to the shedding of their blood."
…
(NONSEQUENTIAL)
…
“It is in accordance with their dignity as persons-that is, beings endowed with reason and free will and therefore privileged to bear personal responsibility-that all men should be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth, especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known, and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth. However, men cannot discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom.”

While your response is interesting, it is a non-sequitur.

I would just like to know the answer to my question: have you as a “liberal Catholic” altered your views to that which the Church proclaims, or do you remain constant with your own particular teachings, despite what the CC says?

I will offer an example from my own life. If I had my druthers, I’d offer the heartiest celebratory congratulations to my friends who are finding a second chance at love. They were married before, to losers, and now have found love again.

If I created the world I would say, “Go for it! Be happy in your second marriage.”

However, I know that I did not create the world, and, as such, He Who Created the World is going to make some demands on me that don’t conform to my own tastes and sensibilities.

As such, I conform my views to God’s.

I don’t say, “Well, God just happens to believe the exact same things that I find pleasing and palatable! Isn’t that wonderful?”

You?

 

[PRmerger]

A liberal Catholic is also open to those with dissenting opinions, because they are the people we need to help bring back to the truth, not celebrate their loss of faith.

Jim

Well, then Popes JPII, B16 and a whole bunch of orthodox Catholics on this forum (me included) are liberal Catholics.

We understand that those with dissenting opinions, to the degree that they have divorced themselves from the faith, given once for all, is the degree that we need to “bring back to the truth.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Whatev.

Call me whatever you want.

Call me whatever you need to call someone.

.

 

[fnr]

I would just like to know the answer to my question: have you as a “liberal Catholic” altered your views to that which the Church proclaims, or do you remain constant with your own particular teachings, despite what the CC says?

I will offer an example from my own life. If I had my druthers, I’d offer the heartiest celebratory congratulations to my friends who are finding a second chance at love. They were married before, to losers, and now have found love again.

If I created the world I would say, “Go for it! Be happy in your second marriage.”

However, I know that I did not create the world, and, as such, He Who Created the World is going to make some demands on me that don’t conform to my own tastes and sensibilities.

I certainly agree with Church teachings. I suppose on some topics, I take some nuance in how I implement them. For example, as I’ve already written, induced abortion is a tough nut to crack. I believe it is murder, and that life begins at conception. However, that moral stance doesn’t dictate what I think the most effective way to tackle the problem. I actually think that outlawing something doesn’t actually stop it from happening if the underlying demand is large enough. On abortion, I think political debate on whether or not Roe vs. Wade should be overturned has meant that we’ve had over three decades in which the underlying drivers of abortion, which kept the rates high before 1971, have continued and gone unattended by the pro-life movement. So, for example, I don’t base my voting solely on whether or not a candidate issue. However, when my state had a stem cell referendum a few years ago, I voted against it, since I think stem cell research produces demand for embryos (I also agree with Church teaching on IVF, so that’s a double-whammy).

Since I am a scientist by profession, I think the scientific method is a way to discover truth. Since two truths cannot contradict one another, it’s a useful way to interpret church teaching. So, for example, in examining cognitive neuroscience, I look at both recent science telling us that personality seems to depend on parts of the brain, and at Church teaching and scripture on the soul. St. Thomas Aquinas did this in Summa Theologica. This process helps me understand what how I bring preconceptions to my interpretation of the teachings… for example, I don’t believe that the soul has the same type of consciousness and senses after death that we have as body and soul together in life. I stay consistent with the Catechism the whole time. Not doing so, in my eyes, invites idolatry, which I think seems to be a danger for many conservatives

There is one issue on which I do not agree with Church teaching as it is currently proclaimed. I won’t go into the reasons here (I’ve posted on it recently in other threads), but I believe that women should be allowed to be ordained for both the diaconate and for the priesthood. I am aware of encyclicals to the contrary, and of the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the teaching is infallible. However, I am also aware that a number of canon lawyers disagree with the infallibility of the teaching. In this regard, I’m disagreeing for particular historical, scriptural, and theological reasons.

As such, I conform my views to God’s

I would say that I do too.

 

[PRmerger]

I certainly agree with Church teachings.

Then, I suppose, there’s nothing to discuss.

Except for your disagreement with the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination.

Firstly, you are aware that whether it is infallible or not is irrelevant (as it applies to this discussion.) We are not free to dismiss teachings that are not infallible.

That is as cheeky as a teenager telling a parent, “Well, I disobeyed the curfew because you didn’t formally tell me it was a curfew.”

Secondly, does it seem reasonable to you that the Church has gotten it right on all the other areas of faith/morals (to which you *have *given your consent) but is just wrong here?

 

[mommy_k]

What about someone who sends “happy holiday” or “seasons greetings” for their Christmas cards because they like the picture?. Totally radical.

 

[St_Francis]

While that may be the case, as a liberal Catholic, I am utterly opposed to this definition. *I am a Catholic who attends mass at least weekly, is a member of a small church community within my parish, reads the Bible and CCC regularly, prays with my daughter every night when I put her to bed.

OK, istm that you are saying that you don’t like being lumped in with Pelosi and Sebelius which is what it looks like to you when people use the term “liberal Catholic” to describe people like P&S–is that what you are saying? That a more clear term is needed?

I am utterly disgusted by any assertion suggesting that being politically liberal has anything whatsoever to do with how faithful a Catholic is. *

If we use a different term to describe those like Edward and Caroline Kennedy, would that be helpful to you and those who agree with you?

Sorry conservatives, it’s not “your church,” and liberals aren’t heterodox rivals seeking to redefine the Church as a hippie commune in 1969.

I think that this clarifies something for me… it seems like you and Alan might be pointing out that using a word loaded with secular baggage causes other implications in the mind of the listener?*

Which brings up another thought: what about people like Schwartzenegger? Altho he and other pro-choice Republicans who are also Catholic have a different rationale and are less vocal about their views, they are still doing the same sort of thing that those whom I have been calling “liberal Catholics” are doing.

Maybe I will take a leaf from CSLewis’s book and call them Quislings, which has lost its emotional baggage… (See? I used a non-Catholic for an idea!) So we can just call them Quisling Catholics.

You raised some interesting points in the rest of your post, to which I would respond except that I would go off-topic. However, they gave me food for thought and I appreciate your sharing those thoughts.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

so your point is there is no need for orthodoxcy (sorry, my spell check isn’t working.)
better tell G.K. Chesterton and the church fathers!

It has nothing to do with being orthodox or not, for a liberal, that is, one who has an open mind and heart to listening and learning, can be orthodox and in fact, also understand the deeper meanings behind Catholic orthodox teachings.

I’ve rarely met a Catholic Priest who did not have an open heart and mind, and at the same time have a deeper understanding of Church teachings, which the rigid close minded Catholic fails to comprehend. The later will too often label the priest as being a liberal in a political mindset.

Jim

 

[fnr]

Except for your disagreement with the Church’s teaching on women’s ordination.

Firstly, you are aware that whether it is infallible or not is irrelevant (as it applies to this discussion.) We are not free to dismiss teachings that are not infallible.

I agree. I wouldn’t say that a priest or bishop should ordain a woman without the hierarchy agreeing. That’s been the case in our church since at least the Council of Trent unifying reforms. I’m not trying to be heterodox, but objective and scientific in supporting the Church. Since I’m a scientist, I always try to say that I’m willing to address whether any of my beliefs agrees or disagrees with objective and independent evidence. I’m not saying I’m right, I just want to be objective. As such, I’ll say where my evidence is limited, but I’ll also say where other evidence is.

For example, when manuscripts were dependent on copying by scribes, only those surviving manuscripts were approved by authorities over time and others were lost to the ravages that time had on papyrus, paper, and other media. As such, we know that the Biblical canon was generally well-preserved. However, that doesn’t mean we have the Bible as it was actually written. For example, most scholars believe that in the lines in 1 Corinthians 14:33b-36 (exhorting women to be silent) were not written by Paul. This is how the New American Bible (on the USCCB web site) notes the verses (in part):
“the verses are often considered an interpolation, reflecting the discipline of later churches; such an interpolation would have to have antedated our manuscripts, all of which contain them, though some transpose them to the very end of the chapter.”
This suggests that the original copy of 1 Corinthians was edited by later scribes who wanted to say that women should be silent. The first manuscripts of 1 Corinthians we have probably come from about 200-300 AD, which says that the editing of Paul’s original writing took place before that. As such, I think that any theology writings that rely on those verses doesn’t actually reflect Paul’s teachings, but “the discipline of later churches.” The problem is that those verses were not actually part of the original bible.

Further, there are references even in the Bible and extant first and second century writings that discuss Paul’s *third *epistle to the Corinthians. What’s in Paul’s epistle, 3 Corinthians? No one knows.

That is as cheeky as a teenager telling a parent, “Well, I disobeyed the curfew because you didn’t formally tell me it was a curfew.”

Again, I’m not trying to disobey, but discuss.

Secondly, does it seem reasonable to you that the Church has gotten it right on all the other areas of faith/morals (to which you *have *given your consent) but is just wrong here?

I think the Church is right on all other areas of faith and morals. As I’ve said, though, objectives based on supporting the Church’s faith/moral issues are different from the methods of how to get there.

 

[fnr]

Further, there are references even in the Bible and extant first and second century writings that discuss Paul’s *third *epistle to the Corinthians. What’s in Paul’s epistle, 3 Corinthians? No one knows.

I should note that there are versions floating around that are heterodox and probably pseudoepigraphic.

 

[sw85]

What constitutes a “liberal” Catholic? In regards to this term, I am not referring to the breakaway “church” that uses the term in liberal in their official name (I think it is the “Liberal Catholic Church of America”? I dont know. anyhow i digress)

In my experience “liberal Catholics” fall into one of two categories:

1. People guilty of material and probably formal heresy, i.e., whose true religion is liberalism and for whom Catholicism is an extraneous addition that must be perverted in order to fit it into their liberalism. Think Kennedy Catholicism.
2. People of good faith who, for whatever reason, think “liberal” describes a laundry list of issue positions the endorsement of which is sufficient to make one a “liberal.” These people are, as I say, often acting in good faith and it’s often not fair to accuse them even of material heresy. On the other hand, they are typically very, very ignorant about what liberalism means. When I hear a person say they don’t get why so many liberals are pro-abortion because liberalism is “mainly about helping the little guy,” I immediately know that person’s opinions are worth nothing.

I would urge people interested in what I mean by this to consider reading Jim Kalb’s The Tyranny of Liberalism. What’s excellent about it is that it looks beyond the typical high school-style superficiality of traditional definitions of liberalism and aims instead at the underlying, motivating worldview, which he describes as technocratic, materialist rationalism. He unpacks and explores where liberalism came from, what it means, where it’s going, etc.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree. I wouldn’t say that a priest or bishop should ordain a woman without the hierarchy agreeing.

Then, again, it appears that there’s nothing more to discuss because we are on the same page here.

You have acknowledged that the Church is correct on her doctrines on faith and morals, but you just need to wrestle with the apologia of how one gets to that understanding.

(Borrowing from the magnificent Cardinal Newman–you are like a math student wrestling with the answer to a problem. You know that the professor has proclaimed the answer correctly, you just haven’t yet come to understand the formula that he used to achieve the correct answer.)

 

[italian_man]

A liberal Catholic is one who doesn’t fully agree with all the Truths of the Catholic Faith from the constant teaching of the Church. They believe that the understanding and meaning of doctrine can change into an entirely different meaning as time changes. This is a heresy known as Modernism, which was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in 1917.

For example, a Catholic who believes that artificial birth control is morally acceptable and not a mortal sin is a liberal. Such a “Catholic” does not agree with doctrine of the Church that has been constantly taught and thus is guilty of heresy.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

A liberal Catholic is one who doesn’t fully agree with all the Truths of the Catholic Faith from the constant teaching of the Church. They believe that the understanding and meaning of doctrine can change into an entirely different meaning as time changes. This is a heresy known as Modernism, which was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in 1917.

For example, a Catholic who believes that artificial birth control is morally acceptable and not a mortal sin is a liberal. Such a “Catholic” does not agree with doctrine of the Church that has been constantly taught and thus is guilty of heresy.

That would be a dissenting Catholic, not a liberal Catholic.

A liberal Catholic still believes and follows the teachings of the Church just as a conservative does.

Jim

 

[fnr]

Should we start a question about how you define “conservative Catholic?”

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Should we start a question about how you define “conservative Catholic?”

I thought the motive behind this thread was from a conservative Catholic point of view.

Jim