My viewpoint on Conservative versus Liberal Catholic: The faithful v the fake

[Joe_5859]

Joe

You know what? I don’t really care what the liberals think of the conservatives any more than I care what the Protestants or the atheists think of us. We are staying true to the Church teachings. If you think the liberals are going to be offended any less by calling their beliefs false (which you must admit they are, unless you are pro-choice, for female priests, and for same-sex marriage) than by calling them fake, you are wrong. I don’t think the liberals care what they are called. They think they are right and they have the truth. They are as dogmatic as the pope because they oppose the pope and the entire Church authority. That is not Catholicism, which Christ wanted to be unified, not scattered. You may think by not calling it fake, we can somehow bring them back down the true path of orthodoxy. I doubt it very much. And by accepting them as true Catholics we very much muddy the waters of orthodox Catholicism, since more and more Catholics, as we have seen during the last three generations, are turning increasingly toward defiance of the Church authority and the Church teachings.

Jesus had it right when he chastised the hypocrites by calling them “snakes and vipers.”

Those labels were a good deal more fierce than “Fake”. Was Christ rude to the hypocrites, or was he rather calling them to account for their hypocrisy.

Fair enough. I have to ask, though, if you see something to be gained by calling other people “fake”? I cannot see what the tangible benefit would be.

I guess I just haven’t given up hope that those with some heterodox beliefs can embrace the orthodox Catholic positions. And I cannot see how using the term “fake Catholic” to someone’s face is anything but a conversation-stopper and an animosity-builder. If I went around talking like that, I could completely understand them dismissing everything else that came out of my mouth merely because it was me who said it.

I do think that calling them “fake” would be offensive to them – even moreso than other terms like “cafeteria Catholic.” And they could simply say, “Who made you arbiter of who is a ‘real’ Catholic and who is a ‘fake’ Catholic?” And I don’t think they’d be wrong to ask that question.

I don’t think them being wrong eliminates the need to treat them with respect. I cannot envision a scenario where calling them “fake” would increase the liklihood that they would listen to what I have to say and/or increase the chances that they would reconsider those positions they hold that are at odds with Church teaching. And – prior to death – there is always the possibility for conversion. No one is predestined to be a heterodox Catholic.

 

[Jessie5000]

The use of words.

Typically, for us Catholics in our debates surrounding Church teaching, especially concerning teaching on moral issues such as abortion or sexual orientation, camps seem to be divided into two groups: those who embrace and agree with the teachings of the Church and those who do not. Bear in mind here that when I speak of those who do not accept the teachings I am not speaking of those who honestly struggle with the Church teaching, I am speaking of those who have the attitude that the Church “needs to grow up”.

We all know that the common terms used for these two camps are “conservative Catholic” and “liberal Catholic”.

I was recently debating abortion online with a non-Catholic who was trying to get me to accept choice over life. This non-Catholic presented me with a list of “pro-choice catholic” website
My response to his list was

"The penalty of excommunication for abortion extends to the mother, all medical personnel, anyone who offers the mother moral or financial support to abort, as well as those who publicly campaign for legalized abortion. Incidentally, no formal notification of such excommunication is necessary, as it takes effect as soon as the action is performed."
p. 77 The Catholic Answer Book vol 1, Rev. Peter M.J. Stravinskas PH.D S.T.D.

And a reference to 1983 CIC 1398.

I have a different pair of terms for these two camps: “faithful Catholic” and “fake Catholic”. This is so out of control now that I feel it is coming to the point where the faithful Catholics need to stand up and demand that the Church take a more direct and individual level of dealing with people . Yes, I am for the Church making people sign a declaration of faith that is kept on file in Rome , the diocese, and the parish. This declaration would be the individual affirmation not to “false preach” against the Church.

The fake Catholics can go the way of Martin Luther. Martin Luther thought the Church should grow up too. Unfortunately, us faithful Catholics have NO WHERE ELSE TO GO ! So guess who it is that needs to leave ?

This may seem mean spirited, but like I stated, I am not against those that honestly struggle and make attempts to reconcile their beliefs, I am against those that knowingly sow the seeds of discontent and false preach.

You say this seems mean-spirited and, yes, it is extremely egocentric and mean-spirited but also demonstrates a very poor understanding of Catholic demographics so your opinions can be understood as stemming from merely a lack of knowledge and ignorance.

First, there is not just 2 camps but many many camps. For example, some are very pro-life and yet want an increased role for women. To suggest that the conservatives camp are faithful and the liberal are fake Catholics is just plainly offensive. It suggests that the only ones you want in the church are those who agree with you as you appear to identify your self as a “faithful” conservative Catholic and not a fake Catholic.

In truth, the Church is composed of many sub-groups ranging from very conservative pro-facists, to conservative, to mid-range, to liberal, to very liberal, and many more… It has always been this way. If you read scripture you will see the community of Antioch was very different from Corinth and these also varied significantly from other communities of Christians. There are few teachings considered infallible and most teaching do develop in depth over time. Their are many ways in which the church has implemented change over time and this has been because of the contribution of many camps holding varying opinions who together work towards a deeper revelation of truth.

Diversity is a gift which brings the church a multiplicity of views, gifts and perspectives. As such, the church requires dialogue amongst many groups to become further enriched and to shape teaching or address issues resulting from new technologies and historical realities. If not, we would still be selling indulgences and insisting the world is flat and the centre of the universe.

To suggest the so called , “Fake Catholics” could leave is contrary to our traditions and our faith where diverse peoples are welcomed and have a role to play in the mystical Body of Christ. The church you aspire to sounds like a country club that excludes the poor, people of various creeds and races…it would be a club where people are surrounded by other who resemble themselves. It would be a church where there is dislike for the unlike.

Our church is so varied and thousands of issues cause tension and disagreement among the many factions. It has always been so… but, to suggest one faction is more favorable over another faction is simply an example ignorance (ignorance is defined as not knowing better), an ignorance like the one that once advocated for slavery based upon natural law.

I guess it goes to show all camps, whether conservative or liberal, must be willing to admit they do not know everything and that discernment of truth requires we look at an issue from all sides…it is an ongoing process as history is always bringing new insights and revelations that impact our understanding of truth. Truth , in many respects is Eschatological and thus unfolding. Your comments not just appear mean-spirited but, if your suggestions were followed, we would have a very cruel mean spirited church which would detract from the teachings of Christ where all are invited to the banquet “as they are” and not only invited when they match a persons definition of what they should be like.

 

[CrossBro]

Jessie

I pointed out that the Church deems one automatically excommunicated for publically speaking in support against moral teachings of the Church.

This not an argument about people’s differing valid personal viewpoints.

This is about the Church enforcing its own universal moral teaching and protecting the Holy Eucharist against sacrilege and preventing scandal.

Diveristy is not a good thing when it translates into infanticide or even Satanism,

 

[Charlemagne_II]

**triumph

I don’t think you should be telling people to cool it!

I’m not offended, but I’m miffed, by posters throwing round the label “liberal.”**

That’s kind of a smug holier-than-thou attitude of yours.

By liberal you know very well who I am talking about. Are we not supposed to talk about people who think they can change Catholic doctrine to be more inclusive of abortionists, same-sex marriage and women priests. You may not think of these people as I do. They want change and acceptance of EVERY point of view. The priest who recently was excommunicated by Pope Francis was a liberal in that regard. You certainly couldn’t call him a conservative.

You don’t like labels either. But sometimes they are necessary.

If you are a liberal, own it, and condemn here the fellow liberals who use Change and Tolerance of evil as something the Catholic Church needs to begin practicing. The Pope doesn’t tolerate these evils and neither should anyone else. Jesus did not tolerate the hypocrites, and neither should we. Paul pleaded with the Christians of Corinth to get on the same page. We should be telling fellow Catholics to get on the same page and stop watering down their Catholic heritage.

I would offer the same advice to conservatives where I found them practicing hypocrisy or going against the teachings and authority of the bishops and the Pope. And I have no doubt many of them are.

It’s time to clean house. You can’t do that without labeling the ones who have dirtied it.

Sinners all, yes. In this case sinners who rebel against the Church. Stop playing nice with them by saying we should not call them what they are … hypocrites, tolerant of sin to a fault, and willing to see our Catholic identity transformed to that of a sinning world.

 

[Moonbug]

I understand your feelings of frustration (which I share to a certain extent), but I don’t think introducing the term “fake Catholic” is going to be of benefit to the overall conversation.

I know many such “liberal Catholics” who firmly and sincerely believe that they are the faithful Catholics whereas they think “conservative Catholics” have more in common with fundamentalists than with actual Catholics. To them, book titles such as Charles Curran’s “Faithful Dissent” are not an oxymoron but a legitimate way of “being Church” (as they would say).

And they feel just as you do that there is nowhere else to go and nowhere else they want to be. Being Catholic is the core part of their identity.

For whatever reason, some such people view certain teachings (homosexuality, women’s ordination, abortion, etc.) as tangential to what it really means to be Catholic. They would put the “essentials” as being the Creed. And they find it curious that “conservatives” give so much time and attention to these issues that – in their estimation – are not really all that bound up with what it means to be Catholic.

I find the whole thing quite sad. I know people who roll their eyes and get put on the defensive at the mere mention of “Gregorian chant,” “Marian devotion,” “Eucharistic adoration,” or “pro-life.” Then I know people who do the same at the thought of “social justice,” or “preferential option for the poor.”

I heard a talk recently where the speaker mentioned how, in the U.S., we often find ourselves feeling more of a sense of comraderie with those of the same political party (regardless of religion) than we do with those who share our Catholic faith (regardless of political party). Again, I find that profoundly sad.

Great reply. Hopefully, Pope Francis will clear up some of the misunderstanding in the Church.

 

[Joe_5859]

**triumph

I don’t think you should be telling people to cool it!

I’m not offended, but I’m miffed, by posters throwing round the label “liberal.”**

That’s kind of a smug holier-than-thou attitude of yours.

By liberal you know very well who I am talking about. Are we not supposed to talk about people who think they can change Catholic doctrine to be more inclusive of abortionists, same-sex marriage and women priests. You may not think of these people as I do. They want change and acceptance of EVERY point of view. The priest who recently was excommunicated by Pope Francis was a liberal in that regard. You certainly couldn’t call him a conservative.

You don’t like labels either. But sometimes they are necessary.

If you are a liberal, own it, and condemn here the fellow liberals who use Change and Tolerance of evil as something the Catholic Church needs to begin practicing. The Pope doesn’t tolerate these evils and neither should anyone else. Jesus did not tolerate the hypocrites, and neither should we. Paul pleaded with the Christians of Corinth to get on the same page. We should be telling fellow Catholics to get on the same page and stop watering down their Catholic heritage.

I would offer the same advice to conservatives where I found them practicing hypocrisy or going against the teachings and authority of the bishops and the Pope. And I have no doubt many of them are.

It’s time to clean house. You can’t do that without labeling the ones who have dirtied it.

Sinners all, yes. In this case sinners who rebel against the Church. Stop playing nice with them by saying we should not call them what they are … hypocrites, tolerant of sin to a fault, and willing to see our Catholic identity transformed to that of a sinning world.

So you are proposing labeling people as liberals, but then only getting rid of the liberals who disagree with Church teaching, not the ones who still accept Church teaching.

So what’s the purpose of the label again?

 

[CrossBro]

So you are proposing labeling people as liberals, but then only getting rid of the liberals who disagree with Church teaching, not the ones who still accept Church teaching.

So what’s the purpose of the label again?

My experience Joe is that most of the people I am talking about already label themselves and very vocally as “liberal catholics”. When I was on Christian Forums they did and even now have a forum for liberal catholics. None of the posters in that forum ever seemed to have a problem with title nor were even shy about obstinately false preaching against the Church.

If they don’t like it they have options, I am sure the local Episcopalian Bishop and her wife would be more than delighted to have them come on board.

For us faithful Catholics, there are no options.

 

[hu324b]

Yes we should abandon they very people who need the churches help in understanding the most - what is the mission of the church? Lets excommunicate everyone we don’t like or doesn’t fit the bill and destroy the mission of the church which is to save sinners and bring them to Christ.

 

[CrossBro]

Yes we should abandon they very people who need the churches help in understanding the most - what is the mission of the church? Lets excommunicate everyone we don’t like or doesn’t fit the bill and destroy the mission of the church which is to save sinners and bring them to Christ.

Answer this question I have asked before in this thread:

What should the Church do about the member who creates a website called “Catholics for Choice” ?

 

[hu324b]

Pray for them.

 

[CrossBro]

Pray for them.

We can pray for the 3300 babies that they killed by abortion today too.

 

[triumphguy]

These following quotes from Faerber Catechism

If you really care about the fake Catholic you must know that you are not helping them by empowering or enabling to commit the sacrilege. The mature Catholic goes to Mass to worship God not to find him. You find God in the world and you worship him in the Church.

What practical things would you like to see done with/to “fake” Catholics?

How would you identify them?
Once identified what would you like to see done to them?

BTW for mortal sin there are 3 requirements - that must be in the Faerber Cathechism?

It is in the CCC.

 

[phil19034]

If you are pro-choice when the Church states that having such a stance publically ex-communicates you, then why would you want to stay anyway ?

I am not pro-choice. But I know many people who believe abortion is wrong, but that the government does not have the right to make it illegal.

“Liberals” tend to view that society should be influenced by good ethics. While “Conservatives” tend to view that society should be influenced by good morals.

The two can be in conflict with each other; esp when the ethic is not morally based.

People in the “abortion is wrong, but the government does not have the right to make it illegal” camp believe in the ethic of “do onto others as you would have them do onto you.” The idea is that “I would not want the government telling me what I can and cannot do with my body, I don’t want the government telling others either. I don’t want others imposing their religious views on me, so I won’t impose mine on them.”

Often these people view that “morally based societies” are too extream (i.e. the Middle-East" so they prefer the “ethical based society.” But strictly “ethical based societies” (which are rather young) lead to a lack of morals and convictions. As America has become a more “ethical based society” look at what has happened… “Sex in the City,” the Kardasians, Paris Hilton, short shorts with butt cheeks hanging out, white see-though shirts with black bras under them, etc. All because people applying eithics without morals.

Society needs to be BALLANCED. Morals and ethics.

And back to the OP, you can’t cast out the “liberal Catholics” we need to better educate our children. We need to have more events at our parishes. People need to volunteer more to put on more events at the parishes instead of complaining. Teach, don’t punish.

Let God and the devil punish the ones who are going to hell. We should try to help them avoid it.

God Bless.

 

[Joe_5859]

My experience Joe is that most of the people I am talking about already label themselves and very vocally as “liberal catholics”. When I was on Christian Forums they did and even now have a forum for liberal catholics. None of the posters in that forum ever seemed to have a problem with title nor were even shy about obstinately false preaching against the Church.

If they don’t like it they have options, I am sure the local Episcopalian Bishop and her wife would be more than delighted to have them come on board.

For us faithful Catholics, there are no options.

I also know people who have no problems labeling themselves as “liberal Catholics.” When I was talking about the label being offensive, I was referring more to the label “fake Catholics”. But the problem comes in saying that all liberal Catholics are “fake” Catholics who disagree with the Church on every single hot-button issue and ought to be ousted from the Church. I don’t think that’s accurate. Not every liberal Catholic holds to the same beliefs on all these issues. I know a non-habit wearing nun who most would consider “liberal” (she’s a big fan of Hilary Clinton), but she goes to daily Mass, is pro-life, supports Catholic sexual morality and doesn’t particularly want to see women priests. Not every liberal can be painted with the same broad brush.

 

[phil19034]

One other comment…

Besides the “liberal” there are also ultra “orthodox” who can be a problem too.

By these people, I mean:

• the one who refuse to sing at mass and look down upon those who do
• the one who only come to Church on Sunday, but are more holy than you
• the one who only complain about their parish, but never speak with pastor or join any groups
• the one who preach “Vatican II distroyed the Church” and hold the new mass in contempt
• the one who look at a crying baby with “evil eyes” in Church
• the one who do not accept “outsiders” to their parish
• the one who cares more about the music than being with Christ
• etc.

I think we have all been guilty of one of these before… but if we are harping on them, then we are part of the problem. “Liberal Catholics” are not the problem in themselves, but the one who continues to complain all the time (both Liberal and Orthodox) are.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think we have all been guilty of one of these before… but if we are harping on them, then we are part of the problem. “Liberal Catholics” are not the problem in themselves, but the one who continues to complain all the time (both Liberal and Orthodox) are.

Indeed. I think if every Catholic went one month without complaining, the Church would be completely rejuvenated and transformed.

 

[Moonbug]

What practical things would you like to see done with/to “fake” Catholics?

How would you identify them?
Once identified what would you like to see done to them?

BTW for mortal sin there are 3 requirements - that must be in the Faerber Cathechism?

It is in the CCC.

Liberals are God’s great gift to the post Vatican II church. They are the ones who wish to see the dictates of Vatican II carried out as the Council intended… It’s not nice to think of booting them out just because you think they are trying to change everything. How can you entertain the idea of dumping a fellow Christian from Christ’s flock when Christ himself told the parable of the Good Shepherd of a 100 sheep who left his flock to go and search for one lost sheep?

Perhaps you don’t see glaring problems growing on the horizon but most liberals do. For every convert coming into the Church today, three Catholics are leaving. And priests to serve the parishes and administer the sacraments are getting scarce a hen’s teeth. The story posted today on the internet is a good example of what liberals are about:

ncronline.org/node/62021

Check it out and see how serious things are in the Church.

 

[Rete]

Pray for them.

They can also rebuke their status as “Catholic” and ex-communicate actual Catholics involved in such an organization. That’s what the Church is supposed to do.

“Pray for them” is what the lay people must do. Ex-communicate them and publicly distance the Catholic Church from such evil is what the bishops must do.

Look at all of the fake Catholic politicians. In general, I agree that calling heterodox Catholics “fake” is counterproductive, but in this case, fake is the only adequate description. If a person calls herself Catholic for political gain, while contradicting and challenging core dogma and moral theology taught by the Church since Jesus first began teaching on this Earth, then she is a fake, all the while dragging the true faith through her own muck and filth to confuse non-Catholics about what Catholicism even means.

Perhaps it’s past time bishops began laying the hammer down on such people?

 

[CrossBro]

What practical things would you like to see done with/to “fake” Catholics?

How would you identify them?
Once identified what would you like to see done to them?

BTW for mortal sin there are 3 requirements - that must be in the Faerber Cathechism?

It is in the CCC.

Maybe you forgot the part in my OP where I stated that the Church should require it’s members to basically sign off on the beliefs and have a contract with the Church ?

Then there would be no excuses would there ?

Also, most liberal Catholics against church teaching are probably better educated than I am about Church dogma- you think Nancy Pelosi is confused on the Church teaching about abortion or the fact that she is already excommunicated ?

 

[triumphguy]

Maybe you forgot the part in my OP where I stated that the Church should require it’s members to basically sign off on the beliefs and have a contract with the Church ?

Then there would be no excuses would there ?

Also, most liberal Catholics against church teaching are probably better educated than I am about Church dogma- you think Nancy Pelosi is confused on the Church teaching about abortion or the fact that she is already excommunicated ?

I agree that political figures, “practicing” Catholicism on the one hand while undermining the church’s teaching on the other should be (have been) brought to book. E.g., JFK, Pelosi etc.
But this is a separate issue and not to be confused with the broader strokes you painted.

Most Catholics are “fake” in that very few of us live up to our baptism (me included) even when we try our best.

I’ve got trouble counting my own sins, never mind someone else’s!

And wherever there are humans involved in the church then hypocrisy and “fake” Catholicism will exist.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I think we should forget about who is “fake” and just focus on teaching, preaching and living the Truth - firstly in our own lives.