Liberalism in the Catholic Church

[Flatlander]

What is a ‘liberal’ Catholic? I would rather use the terms ‘traditional’ and ‘non-traditional’. In my experience, ‘traditional’ Catholics are just that…TRADITIONAL. They follow the church’s teachings, they prefer the more traditional music in church rather than that reflected in pop culture; they prefer the Mass said by both the priest and people following proper rubrics. Your ‘non-traditional’ Catholic is one who does not agree with either some or all of the church’s teachings, who ignores doctrine, who prefers pop music during Mass, and doesn’t mind how many liberties a priestt takes with celebrating the Mass.

EWTN has no capability of polarizing anybody except non-traditional catholics who seem to have a disdain for the Church’s traditions.

The digger you deep, sooner or later you end up in a hell of your own making

IMO a “liberal” Catholic is a protestant. ie someone who protests against some teaching of the Church to the extent of saying that, and living as if, it does not apply to him/her.
I think it has little to do with “traditional” in the usual sense. I do not object to pop music, although I do prefer the more traditional. I like the Latin Mass but am very comfortable with the mass in the vernacular. I do, however object strongly to departures from the teachings of the Church.

 

[Daprato]

I disagree! There is no such thing as being too dedicated to follow Jesus Christ’s teachings. We are all meant to try for perfection and sainthood. Jesus had no use for the mediocre.

Being fundamentalist does not equate to being “too dedicated.” That’s inaccurate.

I think that a liberal Catholic is one who picks and chooses the doctrines or disciplines of the Church that he or she will follow. For example back in the 60’s and 70’s people decided that they could choose to use contraceptives (follow their conscience} as they were told to do by some priests and even bishops. It was wrong! It is against the Church’s teachings.

Your definition is ridiculous. But maybe it’s shared by those who I see misusing and overusing the term “liberal”, so it does shed some light in that sense.

A conservative Catholic is one who accepts all the Church’s doctrines and makes every effort to live by them. Such a person accepts the Church’s discipline as well. We were given the Church by Jesus Christ. He did not say to follow Her only when we think that we should. We do not see the whole picture. Only God does and He gives us the Church who is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Again, your definition is ridiculous. Like the above however, it might shed some light I why I hear the term misused all the time. I know a great many people who consider themselves uber-conservative who actually take positions that contravene what the Church actually instructs because they feel they know “better.”

I didn’t say that. I think that it goes much deeper than a few outward changes.

Peace in Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by Flatlander
IMO a “liberal” Catholic is a protestant. ie someone who protests against some teaching of the Church to the extent of saying that, and living as if, it does not apply to him/her.

Absolutely! Thank you for that post.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by Daprato
Again, your definition is ridiculous. Like the above however, it might shed some light I why I hear the term misused all the time. I know a great many people who consider themselves uber-conservative who actually take positions that contravene what the Church actually instructs because they feel they know “better.”

If you check the Webster dictionary you will find that one of the meanings of the word ‘liberal’ is **‘not orthodox’ **or ‘not conservative’. This is what I am referring to when I speak of liberal Catholics. They are people who are free and loose with some of the teachings of the Church.

Where do you get your definition?

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[buffalo]

In the Catholic Church one is to be orthodox, not heterdox, not conservative and not liberal.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by otjm
Will we see more married priests in the Roman rite? I suspect not, and that saddens me; they, being a married priest, are witness to a good marriage just as a celibate priest can be a witness to celibacy. I believe there is validity in both; so does the Church (as opposed to the Roman rite of the Church) in that it has had 2000 years of having both married clergy and celibate clergy.

I just would like to add that I am not unsympathic to the fact that a priest has a very hard life. We must pray always for our priests and all the clergy. They are doing extremely important and difficult work. And that they cannot have a partner to share and support them has to be very hard sometimes. I’m sure they get lonely.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[alanjeddy]

Hi everyone,
I am having trouble dealing with the fact that there seems to be so little understanding in my area for people who want to get past the cofortable, easy-going catholicism that exists. Since I started watching EWTN, I find that we are surrounded with liberal catholics. The idea seems to be that working for a few common problems such as the environment and poverty is all that is needed. My husband and I for the last few years had been members of a parish that now I find is so far from traditional catholicism. We were members of the Stephen Ministry in the parish. Much of the time I found the meetings discouraging. Even the leaders expressed thoughts about there being no difference between catholics and other christians. When I brought up issues that I thought needed to be discussed, I was hushed. No one seemed to want to face the fact of problems
Now in my own family, I am getting the same response.
I posted my thoughts in an ‘ask a sister’ forum and got an angry response. I got told that if I am looking for the perfect church, I should wait until I am 6 feet under. The sister said that there is no perfect church on this earth. I believe this is wrong. The One True Church led by the Holy Spirit IS perfect. People working in the Church make mistakes when they act without the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
I find it frustrating that there are so few people who are looking for more and better ways to follow the faith.
Are there any other people who have encountered the same difficulties? And what should one do about it?
Love in Jesus Christ
Shi

 

[SemperFidelis]

Your definition is ridiculous. But maybe it’s shared by those who I see misusing and overusing the term “liberal”, so it does shed some light in that sense.

Again, your definition is ridiculous. Like the above however, it might shed some light I why I hear the term misused all the time. I know a great many people who consider themselves uber-conservative who actually take positions that contravene what the Church actually instructs because they feel they know “better.”

I actually think you’re ridiculous. Read Shiprae’s definition, and the link to “liberalism is a sin.” Did you ever stop and think that there’s a reason it’s a sin, the only logical reason being they reject some teaching(s) of the Church? I don’t even remember you giving your definition on this thread. So before you go berating other people’s definitions, why don’t you give your own definition.

 

[alanjeddy]

Today a great spiritual battle is rageing between good and evil, between God’s holy angels and satan’s fallen angels. Yes, we are under attack and at stake is our immortal soul. For the battle has drawn Catholics away from orthodox teachings and spread disunity even within the walls of our churches.A satanic inversion of our true teachings is happening before our very eyes.The truth is called a lie and a lie the truth.

Over 70% of Catholics in North America don’t even go to Mass. The prince of lies has convinced an almost equal amount of Catholics that it is not a sin to take the life of an unborn child. Over 50% of us Catholics don’t believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. In fact a higher percentage of Lutherans
believe that Jesus is present in the Sacrament! Satan whispers in our ears you haven’t committed any sins, follow your conscience. You don’t need to go to confession and the lines have grown shorter and shorter.

Satan has indeed struck our church and scattered the flock. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. John 8:44

There is one answer and His name is Jesus. He who cannot deceive nor be deceived. We must pray to Jesus for our Holy Father, for our priests and for each other. If we pray the Rosary every day Our Blessed Mother will lead all of us back to her Son Jesus who is the Way, the Truth and the Life.

We need only to look to the cross, for there we will see Jesus’ unconditional love.

We only have this brief moment in time here on earth and it will determine where we will spend eternity. We must live our lives in accordance with the true teachings of our Catholic and apostolic faith. The teachings that Jesus gave to His apostles over 2000 years ago. For with every beat of our heart we draw closer and closer to that moment when time gives way to eternity. We will stand before Jesus, and it is our hope that we will experience the infinite ocean of His mercy and His love, as we hear His joyous words: "well done my good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your master’s house.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by SemperFidelis
I actually think you’re ridiculous. Read Shiprae’s definition, and the link to “liberalism is a sin.” Did you ever stop and think that there’s a reason it’s a sin, the only logical reason being they reject some teaching(s) of the Church? I don’t even remember you giving your definition on this thread. So before you go berating other people’s definitions, why don’t you give your own definition.

Thank you SemperFidelis! I didn’t realize that **‘liberalism is a sin’ **mentioned by someone in an earlier post, is a link. It is worth while checking out and reading. I appreciate you pointing it out.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[Shiphrae]

Hello alanjeddy,

Your post sounds very much like a sermon given by Father Corapi. It’s very good!

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[SemperFidelis]

Thank you SemperFidelis! I didn’t realize that **‘liberalism is a sin’ **mentioned by someone in an earlier post, is a link. It is worth while checking out and reading. I appreciate you pointing it out.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

No problem, and God Bless!

 

[Shiphrae]

I think that liberalism really set in after Vatican 2 when some of the clergy started telling people that they could choose to use contraceptives. People were being told ‘follow your conscience’. IMO this was a big mistake. Marriages got out of control. And people got gradually less disciplined. Religion began to take a back seat in people’s lives.

The idea that people can inform their conscience and know what is right, in general, is a fallacy. We don’t know the future and it’s very difficult to understand the consequences of some actions. It’s easy to see contraceptives as only a means of achieving a more loving relationship with one’s spouse. However it does not work. The sexual relationship suffers from becoming too easy. It becomes sex for itself instead of an act of love for a partner. It becomes a selfish pursuit and that leads to less love for the spouse.

Jesus Christ knew His people when He gave us the Church. He knows that we need guidance. Pope John Paul 2 ‘s writings on the ‘Theology of the Body’ explain why contraceptives have a negative effect on a marriage.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[KathleenElsie]

I think that liberalism really set in after Vatican 2 when some of the clergy started telling people that they could choose to use contraceptives. People were being told ‘follow your conscience’. IMO this was a big mistake. Marriages got out of control. And people got gradually less disciplined. Religion began to take a back seat in people’s lives.

The idea that people can inform their conscience and know what is right, in general, is a fallacy. We don’t know the future and it’s very difficult to understand the consequences of some actions. It’s easy to see contraceptives as only a means of achieving a more loving relationship with one’s spouse. However it does not work. The sexual relationship suffers from becoming too easy. It becomes sex for itself instead of an act of love for a partner. It becomes a selfish pursuit and that leads to less love for the spouse.

Jesus Christ knew His people when He gave us the Church. He knows that we need guidance. Pope John Paul 2 ‘s writings on the ‘Theology of the Body’ explain why contraceptives have a negative effect on a marriage.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

Well siad.

 

[peary]

Well siad.

**Agreed.

When the Church tells us to follow our conscience, it means a CORRECTLY INFORMED CONSCIENCE, which means both knowing and understanding the Church’s teaching on a certain matter AND WHY. THAT is an “informed conscience”.**

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by peary
Agreed.

When the Church tells us to follow our conscience, it means a CORRECTLY INFORMED CONSCIENCE, which means both knowing and understanding the Church’s teaching on a certain matter AND WHY. THAT is an “informed conscience”.

Thank you for your positive response. And thank you KathleenElsie

I agree with the rest of your post. However, the problem as I see it is this: One might think that he/she has informed herself/himself well. They may have gone to their local priest, read the important literature, etc. and still make the wrong decision. The fact is that in the case of using contraceptives, it is always forbidden by the Church. It should never have been a matter for individual conscience.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[peary]

Thank you for your positive response. And thank you KathleenElsie

I agree with the rest of your post. However, the problem as I see it is this: One might think that he/she has informed herself/himself well. They may have gone to their local priest, read the important literature, etc. and still make the wrong decision. The fact is that in the case of using contraceptives, it is always forbidden by the Church. It should never have been a matter for individual conscience.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

People are going to do what people are going to do. It’s the sad story of humanity since Genesis.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by peary
People are going to do what people are going to do. It’s the sad story of humanity since Genesis.

My point is that many of the clergy were misguiding the laity. The answer to people regarding contraceptives should have been a definite NO It was always against the Church’s teachings.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

 

[peary]

My point is that many of the clergy were misguiding the laity. The answer to people regarding contraceptives should have been a definite NO It was always against the Church’s teachings.

Peace of Christ,
Shiphrae

I realize that, but whether or not the priests allowed people to make their own decisions in this regard or not did not matter because, again, people were going to do what they want regardless, permission or not. That is my point. Those in the orthodox church were using contraceptives also and the orthodox hierarchy captitulated to what the people wanted because they were afraid they would lose membership. Well, forty years later, they have lost membership regardless. It was a stupid reason.

 

[Shiphrae]

originally posted by peary
I realize that, but whether or not the priests allowed people to make their own decisions in this regard or not did not matter because, again, people were going to do what they want regardless, permission or not.

Excuse me for saying so but I think that you are kind of begging the question. It’s kind of like a parent allowing a child to do something that would be very bad for her with the excuse that she might do it anyway when the parent’s back is turned. I consider that quite bad parenting.