Liberal catholics

[GIR]

One honest question that’s always been bugging me, though. Why do liberal catholics want to be catholic in the first place? is it because they don’t want enter the despair of atheism but want to divest themselves of all the personal morality? Is it nostalgia? Is it a vague sense that Catholicism is part of their identity? You’re italian/irish/polish/spanish so you HAVE to call yourself a “catholic” just like jews will call themselves jews even when they’ve abandoned God altogether?

I once had a supervisor who wanted to get his son baptized, but couldn’t find a priest that wouldn’t make him promise to raise the child Catholic (+1 for our priests). I could really tell that getting him baptized was important, but why is that so but not giving the child a Catholic upbringing? I just don’t understand. I wanted to scream at him that that was the point of baptism.

Of course this being the trad board, many will say things about communist infiltration into the hierarchy, and while I’m sure that happened, I don’t think this whole thing is all a direct result of that.

 

[ZDHayden]

I once had a supervisor who wanted to get his son baptized, but couldn’t find a priest that wouldn’t make him promise to raise the child Catholic (+1 for our priests).

I would like to first say that I find this statement perplexing, much for the same reason you wanted to scream.

I honestly think that it may be a bit of cultural identity keeping those who go against Church teachings within the Catholic™ brand. (No I do not see the Church as a “brand” of Christianity but many, especially liberal Christians, do.)

However, there may also be a sense that Catholicism is true in these people (I hope), but they do not wish to give up their own views to conform to the teachings of the Church.

 

[LemonAndLime]

I’m in the process of converting to Catholicism and my political viewpoints and opinions prior to converting are probably what you would call “liberal”, although my viewpoints etc are certainly being challenged and I’m more than happy to accept my teachers at RCIA to be more knowledgeable than I am.

However, what an American considors liberal is vastly different from what a European considors liberal. American politics has always been dominated by the conservative (right wing) viewpoint, and anything deviating from that would be considored “liberal” or even worse “socialist/communist”.

So I want you to clarify - when you talk about “liberal Catholics” are you talking about those with liberal political viewpoints (that might not necessarily be against teaching but could still be contraversial) or morally liberal (things that could go against teaching)?

 

[Joe_5859]

Fr. Andrew Greely (who holds to some questionable views himself) wrote a pretty insightful essay on the topic:

Why I’m Still a Catholic

I think this article is very helpful in answering this question (which I see pop up often around here and in more orthodox Catholic circles).

Of course, I also don’t think there is one answer to apply unilaterally to all “liberal” Catholics as though they are one homogenous group. For example, with your once-supervisor, the term “liberal Catholic” may not be as apt as simply “cultural Catholic”. I think that with some people, after being raised Catholic without adequate catechesis and then falling away, the birth of a child instills in them the feeling of obligation to get the child baptized. They may not even think through it rationally as to why they want their kid baptized. It’s something their parents did, so they want to do it, too. I think of it as the tiny little spark of grace in them that leads them to know it is something important even if they don’t understand it at all. This obviously wouldn’t apply to people like Fr. Greely and those Catholics who are quite knowledgable of Catholic teaching but choose to dissent from it anyway.

 

[ohioszo]

I’m not sure what you mean about liberal either.

I have relatives who do not attend Mass, because they are divorced and do not want an anullment. Their marriages fell apart because they married men who were addicted to alcohol or drugs. This is true in at least three that immediately come to mind; the addiction problem. My aunt has a statue of the Infant of Prague, and, came back, but, the devil works his ways. She questions her son’s marriage in her heart, 'cause it was his wife’s second, and, he eventually lost his marriage for another reason. So, in her mind, how could his wife marry the second time, in the Church! Whatever you say about liberal, in terms of politics, for being magnanimous is a good virtue in Catholicism, and erring on the side of the Gospel is certainly the right thing to do! … I think divorce is the number one culprit. A conservative Catholic would get an annullment, these days? Or are it the liberal minded Catholics, and the conservative ones stay married through thick and thin (my parents would say that!) Maybe there are different degrees of Faith on the road, everyone is not on the same level. A Priest said that once during a homily.

Separating and labelling Catholics either Liberal or Consevative as Catholic, is WRONG!

I understand the label Traditional. What you end up with is trying to please everyone, rather than having Holiness as a goal. Latin and English, Spanish and worry … guitar, organ, bells, this, that and another thing. Last night, the Monstrance, was taken down during Holy Hours, because a Spanish Healing Mass was going on. Why couldn’t they coexist for those few hours??? In that case, Holiness would have won the battle, I think.

 

[TMC]

One honest question that’s always been bugging me, though. Why do liberal catholics want to be catholic in the first place? is it because they don’t want enter the despair of atheism but want to divest themselves of all the personal morality? Is it nostalgia? Is it a vague sense that Catholicism is part of their identity? You’re italian/irish/polish/spanish so you HAVE to call yourself a “catholic” just like jews will call themselves jews even when they’ve abandoned God altogether?

I once had a supervisor who wanted to get his son baptized, but couldn’t find a priest that wouldn’t make him promise to raise the child Catholic (+1 for our priests). I could really tell that getting him baptized was important, but why is that so but not giving the child a Catholic upbringing? I just don’t understand. I wanted to scream at him that that was the point of baptism.

Of course this being the trad board, many will say things about communist infiltration into the hierarchy, and while I’m sure that happened, I don’t think this whole thing is all a direct result of that.

I’m not sure what you consider a “liberal Catholic,” but why do you assume that liberal Catholics have no personal morality? Have you considered that there are many Catholics who are devout, good-hearted and moral people that may, nonetheless, disagree with you from time to time?

 

[jonpd]

I’m in the process of converting to Catholicism and my political viewpoints and opinions prior to converting are probably what you would call “liberal”, although my viewpoints etc are certainly being challenged and I’m more than happy to accept my teachers at RCIA to be more knowledgeable than I am.

However, what an American considors liberal is vastly different from what a European considors liberal. American politics has always been dominated by the conservative (right wing) viewpoint, and anything deviating from that would be considored “liberal” or even worse “socialist/communist”.

So I want you to clarify - when you talk about “liberal Catholics” are you talking about those with liberal political viewpoints (that might not necessarily be against teaching but could still be contraversial) or morally liberal (things that could go against teaching)?

I think that for Catholics we tend to have some aspects that are associated with the politically liberal side of things, such as a strong belief in social justice, fair wages, immigration, etc. yet are conservative on issues such as the sanctity of life, marriage and family values. I disagree that as Americans we are dominated by the right wing (in spite of what happened Tuesday) we are a center-right leaning country, due to a stronger belief in individual achievement and personal freedom.

I think when people talk about liberal Catholics they mean those that take a looser view of the authority of the Church and emphasize more the right of an individual to make their own decisions about Church teachings, rather than the political side of things which can be “liberal” even for traditional Catholics.

 

[WorkerPriest]

While I acknowledge the same difficulties with the labels used below, this thread struck me strangely. I’m curious your thoughts on a theory I’ve been cultivating.

One of the blessings and curses of the Lutheran Reformation, was the emergence and subscription to very specific Confessions. For us, that’s the 1580 Book of Concord, which almost functions like the canons of a local Germanic council. When Lutherans start measuring each other’s “lutheraness” it is usually in how much they either align or diverge from the Confessions, the heart of which are the Three Historic Creeds (Apostles/Nicene/Athanasian) and the Augustana with its Apology. Over the centuries since the Reformation, Lutheran synods have used the Confessions to repel many historic errors, and at least attempt internal coherence in doctrine and practice. Of course, recent history does not provide a kind analysis of our success…

Does the newly published Roman Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, function like a defacto confession for modern Roman Catholics? Is that the way you might judge a Catholic to be either “liberal” or “traditional?” It seems to my reading, that the reception of traditionalist Anglo-catholics into the Roman communion, used the Catechism as a document to which signatures and subscription were made. Is the doctrinal criterion more stringent (i.e., subscription to the CCC) for those entering the Roman communion, than for those who wish to remain within it?

Peace to you.

One honest question that’s always been bugging me, though. Why do liberal catholics want to be catholic in the first place? is it because they don’t want enter the despair of atheism but want to divest themselves of all the personal morality? Is it nostalgia? Is it a vague sense that Catholicism is part of their identity? You’re italian/irish/polish/spanish so you HAVE to call yourself a “catholic” just like jews will call themselves jews even when they’ve abandoned God altogether?

I once had a supervisor who wanted to get his son baptized, but couldn’t find a priest that wouldn’t make him promise to raise the child Catholic (+1 for our priests). I could really tell that getting him baptized was important, but why is that so but not giving the child a Catholic upbringing? I just don’t understand. I wanted to scream at him that that was the point of baptism.

Of course this being the trad board, many will say things about communist infiltration into the hierarchy, and while I’m sure that happened, I don’t think this whole thing is all a direct result of that.

 

[tskrobacz]

While neither political party strongly supports the message of Jesus, I have seen very few authentic Christians that are Democratic and even fewer that are Republican. Jesus’ message was one of unity, not division, community, not individualism. And yes I’m a grateful cradle Catholic that has drawn greatly on the wisdom of Saints and Catholic Mystics throughout my 48 years…

 

[Holly3278]

When I refer to liberal Catholics, I am referring to the type often referred to as (whether charitably or not so charitably) cafeteria “Catholics”. You know, the kind who think they can go in and pick and choose what to believe.

I don’t really know why they believe that. Catholicism is definitely NOT a pick and choose religion! Sure, there are plenty of things to pick and choose from, things other than beliefs about Faith and morality! But that is exactly what these types want to do! They want to beleive what they want when it comes to the Faith and also when it comes to morality. This is why we see “Catholics” like Pelosi who enthusiastically support abortion!

Some would say that the problem is exclusively with catechetics. Not so with Pelosi and many others! Many of them know what is true as they have been taught and corrected so many times it isn’t even funny! Yet the still refuse to believe!

It is with these types of Catholics, the ones who refuse to believe even after being corrected, that I believe every single last one of them must be denied Holy Communion if it is on a serious or dogmatic issue like abortion until they repent and confess their sins once again.

If we do not take such drastic measures, how else are we to correct them? I say we will not correct them if the Church does not take drastic measures against every last one of them. Excommunication, of course, is also a disciplinary measure that might well be used.

That said, I think a big part of why people do this is pride.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(1Co 5:1-5 RSV)

Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold.
(Mat 24:11-12 NAB-A)

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil; then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
(Rom 16:17-20 NAB-A)

We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a spirit, or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god-- do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?
(2Th 2:1-5 NAB-A)

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well. Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life. I write you these things about those who would deceive you.
(1Jn 2:18-26 NAB-A)

But yeah, I have just one more thing to say. Catholicism is not a pick and choose religion. You either accept all of the declared doctrines and dogmas, or you’re not a Catholic.

 

[TMC]

While I acknowledge the same difficulties with the labels used below, this thread struck me strangely. I’m curious your thoughts on a theory I’ve been cultivating.

One of the blessings and curses of the Lutheran Reformation, was the emergence and subscription to very specific Confessions. For us, that’s the 1580 Book of Concord, which almost functions like the canons of a local Germanic council. When Lutherans start measuring each other’s “lutheraness” it is usually in how much they either align or diverge from the Confessions, the heart of which are the Three Historic Creeds (Apostles/Nicene/Athanasian) and the Augustana with its Apology. Over the centuries since the Reformation, Lutheran synods have used the Confessions to repel many historic errors, and at least attempt internal coherence in doctrine and practice. Of course, recent history does not provide a kind analysis of our success…

Does the newly published Roman Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, function like a defacto confession for modern Roman Catholics? Is that the way you might judge a Catholic to be either “liberal” or “traditional?” It seems to my reading, that the reception of traditionalist Anglo-catholics into the Roman communion, used the Catechism as a document to which signatures and subscription were made. Is the doctrinal criterion more stringent (i.e., subscription to the CCC) for those entering the Roman communion, than for those who wish to remain within it?

Peace to you.

I think the Catechism is similar in some way to the Confessions, but it is not a perfect fit (at least as I understand the Confessions). In my opinion, all Catholics must be able to cleave to the Creeds. To be perfectly in accord with the Church, a Catholic should LAO agree with everything in the Catechism. In the real world, there are both so-called traditionalists and so-called liberals that struggle with certain parts of the Catechism. I don’t think that means they aren’t real Catholics or even good Catholics, but there are purists on both sides of discussion that would probably disagree with me.

 

[estesbob]

I’m in the process of converting to Catholicism and my political viewpoints and opinions prior to converting are probably what you would call “liberal”, although my viewpoints etc are certainly being challenged and I’m more than happy to accept my teachers at RCIA to be more knowledgeable than I am.

However, what an American considors liberal is vastly different from what a European considors liberal. American politics has always been dominated by the conservative (right wing) viewpoint, and anything deviating from that would be considored “liberal” or even worse “socialist/communist”.

So I want you to clarify - when you talk about “liberal Catholics” are you talking about those with liberal political viewpoints (that might not necessarily be against teaching but could still be contraversial) or morally liberal (things that could go against teaching)?

That is a good question. In the traditional Catholic forums I am considered liberal which I suspect probably surprises you having read my post in the world news forum!

Is a liberal Catholic one who enjoys the Novus ordo, doesn’t mind guitars at mass and hold hands during the our father? If so i am guitly as charged!

 

[LemonAndLime]

That is a good question. In the traditional Catholic forums I am considered liberal which I suspect probably surprises you having read my post in the world news forum!

Is a liberal Catholic one who enjoys the Novus ordo, doesn’t mind guitars at mass and hold hands during the our father? If so i am guitly as charged!

That’s true that does surprise me which forums are more traditional than this one? Oh gosh.

 

[Adeodatus]

Well, in the ‘conservative’ USA we have butchered 50 million innocent babies since infanticide was made legal here. There is rampant sodomy and every other immorality. We are choking to death on our own filth.

All these social ills are supported and encouraged by many people who falsely declare themselves to be ‘Catholic’. Many of these Iscariots even belong to political parties which officially support infanticide in their party platform.

It is indeed puzzling… even maddening.

 

[Adeodatus]

I’m in the process of converting to Catholicism and my political viewpoints and opinions prior to converting are probably what you would call “liberal”, although my viewpoints etc are certainly being challenged and I’m more than happy to accept my teachers at RCIA to be more knowledgeable than I am.

However, what an American considors liberal is vastly different from what a European considors liberal. American politics has always been dominated by the conservative (right wing) viewpoint, and anything deviating from that would be considored “liberal” or even worse “socialist/communist”.

So I want you to clarify - when you talk about “liberal Catholics” are you talking about those with liberal political viewpoints (that might not necessarily be against teaching but could still be contraversial) or morally liberal (things that could go against teaching)?

Welcome to God’s Church, my friend.

Actually, what you have said about American politics is incorrect. There are very few actual Right Wing people in the USA… I’m deeply sorry to say that, but it is true.

“Right” and “Left” come from the French National Assembly, on the eve of the Revolution and before the Tennis Court Oath. Those who sat on the Right supported the Monarchy, the Aristocracy and the Church. Those who sat on the Left were for the destruction of those institutions (or their removal from French civil life).

A Rightist is someone who supports a monarchy or benevolent dictatorship, supports a meritocratic form of rule (rule by the best, not by the mob) and who believes that the Church should be enthroned in the civil life of the state and people. As I said, to our shame such people are rare in the USA. It is especially sad since Rightism is the native political orientation of the Catholic Christian, who first of all recognizes the eternal kingship of Jesus Christ.

Both major parties in the USA are Left Wing parties. The Republicans are the (classical) Liberal party. The Democrats are a mixture of Liberals and Marxists*.

• Most Marxists in the USA are not Dialectical Materialists; they are instead “Western” Marxists such as Freudo-Marxists. The biggest influences over here have been the Frankfurt School, Gramsci and Lukacs.

 

[paddy22]

Why do people get so defensive when these terms are used? Obviously in reality there exists a range of opinion regarding Church matters among Catholics. The right opinions are those that are in agreement with the Church. Should this difference in opinion exist? No, it shouldn’t - Church teachings are clear and not up for debate. Using the term liberal or the term conservative is just a way to describe this difference of opinion/belief. We all know what the distinction generally means - liberals have an issue with some teachings of the Church, conservatives don’t. Now I say generally because maybe some people define them differently. That definition is just what I have observed when the terms are used in regards to Catholics. Maybe some people just don’t like on which side of the spectrum they fall. It’s easy to understand despite the political connotations the words bring up.

 

[OraLabora]

First of all the grace flowing from our baptism makes us all Catholics, even the rebellious ones. We are all part of the Body of Christ and we are all defective in some way, requiring Christ’s redemptive work on the Cross for our salvation. If anybody here is a parent they’ll know what I mean. If we have a rebellious child or teenager, we love him/her every bit as much as the non-rebellious one, and moreover we still consider them part of the family, as difficult as that may be some times. It’s the unconditional love that’s part of the territory when becoming a parent.

Similarly God loves us all unconditionally, and wishes for the redemption of all of us. He is, moreover, very patient. A Catholic that we consider rebellious or, a label I hate “liberal”, may very well be on the path to a fuller conversion over time as he or she gets to learn the faith better. Some may be stubbornly rebellious to their dying breath.

Consider which outcome our Father wishes for each and every one of us: rebellious or a gradual and full conversion, and consider how labelling people and ostracizing them from the Church (something none of us, BTW, have the authority to do), will achieve the goal our Father wants for all of us.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

When I refer to liberal Catholics, I am referring to the type often referred to as (whether charitably or not so charitably) cafeteria “Catholics”. You know, the kind who think they can go in and pick and choose what to believe.

I don’t really know why they believe that. Catholicism is definitely NOT a pick and choose religion! Sure, there are plenty of things to pick and choose from, things other than beliefs about Faith and morality! But that is exactly what these types want to do! They want to beleive what they want when it comes to the Faith and also when it comes to morality. This is why we see “Catholics” like Pelosi who enthusiastically support abortion!

Some would say that the problem is exclusively with catechetics. Not so with Pelosi and many others! Many of them know what is true as they have been taught and corrected so many times it isn’t even funny! Yet the still refuse to believe!

It is with these types of Catholics, the ones who refuse to believe even after being corrected, that I believe every single last one of them must be denied Holy Communion if it is on a serious or dogmatic issue like abortion until they repent and confess their sins once again.

If we do not take such drastic measures, how else are we to correct them? I say we will not correct them if the Church does not take drastic measures against every last one of them. Excommunication, of course, is also a disciplinary measure that might well be used.

That said, I think a big part of why people do this is pride.

It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
(1Co 5:1-5 RSV)

Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold.
(Mat 24:11-12 NAB-A)

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who create dissensions and obstacles, in opposition to the teaching that you learned; avoid them. For such people do not serve our Lord Christ but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering speech they deceive the hearts of the innocent. For while your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, I want you to be wise as to what is good, and simple as to what is evil; then the God of peace will quickly crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you.
(Rom 16:17-20 NAB-A)

We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him, not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a spirit, or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand. Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one doomed to perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god-- do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?
(2Th 2:1-5 NAB-A)

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that the antichrist was coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. Thus we know this is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not really of our number; if they had been, they would have remained with us. Their desertion shows that none of them was of our number. But you have the anointing that comes from the holy one, and you all have knowledge. I write to you not because you do not know the truth but because you do, and because every lie is alien to the truth. Who is the liar? Whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is the antichrist. No one who denies the Son has the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well. Let what you heard from the beginning remain in you. If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, then you will remain in the Son and in the Father. And this is the promise that he made us: eternal life. I write you these things about those who would deceive you.
(1Jn 2:18-26 NAB-A)

But yeah, I have just one more thing to say. Catholicism is not a pick and choose religion. You either accept all of the declared doctrines and dogmas, or you’re not a Catholic.

The problem I have with the ideas you expressed is that it the “cafeteria pick and choose” mentality is not relagated only to liberals as I have experienced this same thing with Catholics who refuse to accept the post-Vatican II church.

 

[paddy22]

I didn’t know there was a pre-VII Church and a post-VII Church - aren’t all of our beliefs the same? What must be accepted? Who is more dangerous to the Church - somebody who publicly denies Church teaching and still claims the name Catholic, or somebody who adheres to Tradition and the Magisterium, including those who attend Mass with the SSPX?

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I didn’t know there was a pre-VII Church and a post-VII Church - aren’t all of our beliefs the same? What must be accepted? Who is more dangerous to the Church - somebody who publicly denies Church teaching and still claims the name Catholic, or somebody who adheres to Tradition and the Magisterium, including those who attend Mass with the SSPX?

I agree with you, but , for some reason, it seems that the line is usually drawn around Vatican II.