Liberal Catholics Vs. Conservatives

[Colin_Adian]

We need to be careful about being too polarizing by placing all Catholics in one of two camps. It can be useful for discussion, but it doesn’t work well in reality. I’ve known Catholics who would probably be considered “liberal”, but who are more than willing to follow what their bishop says and who get irritated at the “conservatives” who want to be their own bishop by determining for themselves what is authentic magisterial teaching.

That’s funny because it is usually the liberal/heretical/unorthodox catholics (which ever was decided on) that like “be their own bishop” A real conservative catholic goes with what the magisterium teaches.

 

[Colin_Adian]

And there are FAR fewer of those than most people think…actually two since the mid-1800s. (I’m sure I’ll get an argument on that, but that’s a different thread).

When someone says they are orthodox (small “o”) to me, it comes out sounding triumphalist–as in I’m orthodox and you’re not.

There are better ways of winning the so-called dissident than throwing names at him/her.

John

The poster you quoted should have said moral teachings, which you do have to listen to. A prime example is that there has never been an infallible statement saying contraception is wrong, but until the church says it is not a sin you have no wiggle room.

 

[motherofsix]

I think I am getting a headache!!

 

[MarcellusW]

The poster you quoted should have said moral teachings, which you do have to listen to. A prime example is that there has never been an infallible statement saying contraception is wrong, but until the church says it is not a sin you have no wiggle room.

Your comment about contraception is absolutely wrong. The Catechism is Magisterium teaching, which is infallible.

Please refer to the Catechism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. 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:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[Colin_Adian]

**

Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe there should be women priests? Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe that the discipline of clerical celibacy should be removed?

Actually yeah it does… funny thing is that 99% of the time people against celibacy are not celibates.

Your comment about contraception is absolutely wrong. The Catechism is Magisterium teaching, which is infallible.

Should be noted we were talking about statements made with papal infallibility (read the entire post of person I quoted)… but touche!

 

[Colin_Adian]

Your comment about contraception is absolutely wrong. The Catechism is Magisterium teaching, which is infallible.

Please refer to the Catechism:

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.157 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. 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:158

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.159

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

but if you really want to know:

“The catechism is simply a summary of the teachings of our faith. Within those teachings there are teachings which are infallible (eg the Trinity, the Resurrection, te Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, etc) and teachings that are not. However, all the teachings of the Church - infallible or not - are to be taken seriously.”

 

[MarcellusW]

**

Actually yeah it does… funny thing is that 99% of the time people against celibacy are not celibates.

Should be noted we were talking about statements made with papal infallibility (read the entire post of person I quoted)… but touche!

Just keeping you precise

 

[John_Higgins]

There are plenty of Church teachings which do not have the protection of infallibility, in fact most of them. They are still valid teachings, however.

John

 

[Joe_5859]

Just because “they”, in their minds, do not think they are in conflict with Rome, doesn’t mean they aren’t. There are many folks who are out of sync with the teachings of the Church because they either haven’t learned them, or knowing of them choose to ignore them, because the truth doesn’t fit their schema of the world. The truth doesn’t change. Some who think they can interpret Church Doctrine to their benefit, or bend the truth to fit their interpretation of what the Church truly teaches, have done great harm to the Church throughout the world and to those who trust them to be accurate in their teachings.

This is because of the acceptance of relativism in our society and the refusal of its members to admit there are such theological laws as objective truth.

No argument here. People can delude themselves about a great many things (and I am fairly certain that I am probably guilty of that myself from time to time ). But I have heard people say, quite sincerely, that the Church (although She has the authority to do so) has never in Her history spoken infallibly on moral issues. And this was a priest who teaches at a Catholic university! I think such sentiments are severely off base and greatly harmful to those being taught. But I have no doubt that he was completley sincere in his belief. In his mind, he is perfectly in line with Church teaching, even when this belief leads him to accept things like homosexual “marriage” and abortion. He realizes he disagrees with certain Church documents, but doesn’t see it as a problem since he doesn’t think those documents are of an infallible nature.

That’s funny because it is usually the liberal/heretical/unorthodox catholics (which ever was decided on) that like “be their own bishop” A real conservative catholic goes with what the magisterium teaches.

Yes, that was my point. It is easy (for me, at least) to view the “liberals” as the ones who want to be their own Magisterium, but some of them feel the same way about the “conservatives”. Imagine, for example, living in a diocese where the bishop allows Catholics to eat meat on Friday during Lent because it’s St. Patrick’s Day. This is something the bishop has every right to do. But then the “liberals” hear the “conservatives” complaining that the bishop is being too lax and that “real” Catholics will abstain from meat anyway. Then the “liberals” can sit back and say “See, they’re really just dissenting in a different sort of way.”

I’m not saying any of this is the right attitude to have, but this is what happens. At least, I know I’ve heard it before.

I think I am getting a headache!!

I think this is the best summary of this thread so far!

 

[Dicerning]

Yeah, just throw truth.

:shamrock2:

i have never thrown names at this woman personally. In fact I consider her a family friend. She is though, Absolutely CLueless when it comes to the teachings of our faith. If anyone from this thread were to talk to her in casual conversation they would assume she was protestant if she ever mentioned that she was a church education director.

The alarming thing is the fact that she is a paid director of religious education at my parish and my 7th grader knows more about Catholicism than she does.

 

[Ruben]

Re: Liberal Catholics Vs. Conservatives

I heard the following in an interview and it is something to reflect deeply upon.

‘The Catholic is neither right nor left, he looks at temporal things in the light of eternity and he goes higher or deeper, but it is perfectly stupid to say right or left from a purely Catholic point of view.’

Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand,
quoting her husband,
Dr. Dietrich Von Hildebrand

 

[Matariel]

Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe there should be women priests?

Yes, considering that Pope John Paul II said that women cannot be priestesses and that this is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.

Does it really bother you to have Catholics who believe that the discipline of clerical celibacy should be removed?

No, that’s a disciplinary rule and is debateable. However, it is a longstanding tradition (lower “c”) in the Latin rite.

Why should someone who believes differently from you be called names? Catholic in Name Only? Right. What that really means most of the time is “Catholic who doesn’t agree with me”.

I only use it for people as in, “Catholic who doesn’t agree with the Church’s infallible teachings”.

This is a big Church; there’s plenty of room for everyone.

But it’s not a club. Downwatering Catholic teaching just to get people in the churchdoors is not acceptable.