Pope Francis agitates conservative U.S. Catholics

[ProVobis]

Greetings…You Ultra Conservatives do not represent the majority of Roman Catholics. The majority of Roman Catholics are involved in their parishes trying to live Christian lives by practicing the Sermon on the Mount!

Some humility.

 

[masondoggy]

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/01/pope-francis-catholics-americans-culture/18263293/
*
There are some false or misleading statements in this article,such as these:*

< "The conservatives had it all their way for about 30 years, and now the shoe might be on the other foot,’’ says the Rev. Paul Sullins, a priest who teaches sociology at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. "Now they feel on the outside a little bit, which is exactly how the progressives used to feel.’’ >
*
Conservatives have not had it all their way for the past 30 years. Liberals and lukewarm people have been the dominant influence. *

< Any doubt that times are changing ended with last month’s Vatican synod, or church council, which brought hundreds of bishops and other Catholics to Rome for two weeks to discuss the application of church teaching on marriage and family life. >
*
The Church is not changing its doctrine,and the upcoming synod will not likely propose changes to pastoral care that will undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage and family life.
*
< Liberals cheered a preliminary report on the proceedings that, consonant with Francis’ inclinations, expressed welcome to gay men and lesbians of faith and hope for gentler treatment of Catholics who live together outside of marriage or have divorced and remarried outside the church (and thus cannot receive Communion).

Conservatives then rallied and struck much of what they found offensive in the first report from the synod’s final one — a move widely reported as a rebuff of Francis. But the damage was done. >
*
The mid-term report was not consonant with Francis’ inclinations,and the bishops who opposed it did not rebuff him. *

< In yet another interview, he said that ‘‘everyone has his own idea of good and evil’’ and should ‘‘follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them’’ — a seeming rejection of a black-or-white view of morality. >
*
The pope does not have a relativist view of morality.*

< David Gibson, an experienced church observer, wrote in a Religion News Service article that Cupich’s appointment "may signal the beginning of the end of three decades of conservative dominance.’’ >
*
Conservatives have not been dominant.*

< Accordingly, many Catholics said they feel the world just doesn’t get Francis. When he made headlines last week for saying that the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin was consistent with Catholic theology and cosmology, Smith felt frustrated.

Although the pope’s remark frequently was presented by news media as another example of the pope’s outspoken liberalism, she knew he was merely repeating a position announced in 1951 by Pope Pius XII and reiterated by several popes since. >
*
Pope Pius XII did not really say that the Big Bang theory was consistent with Catholic theology. He said that science verifies the mutability of things,including their origin and their end,and the teleological order of the cosmos,and that scholars regard the idea of creation as compatible with their scientific conceptions and research.

A scientific theory can only be consistent with Catholic theology if it is logical and true. *

My biggest pet peeve is those who try to label Catholics in political terms…Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, etc. etc.

There’s only two choices: A Catholic that’s loyal to Church teaching and one who is not. There’s no in between.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

From the article- “In a 2,000-year-old institution that proclaims immutable truth, the continuities between papacies almost always dwarf the differences. And the differences are almost always more about emphasis than substance.”

In other words- “Hey this is a whole lot of nothing, but we need to sell papers so we’ll try and turn this into a story.”

 

[ProVobis]

From the article- “In a 2,000-year-old institution that proclaims immutable truth, the continuities between papacies almost always dwarf the differences. And the differences are almost always more about emphasis than substance.”

In other words- “Hey this is a whole lot of nothing, but we need to sell papers so we’ll try and turn this into a story.”

You got that right. And they’ll pit one Pope vs another, one Cardinal over another to do it.

Apostolic Succession is exactly that. One of continuity regardless of whose side you’re on.

 

[Digitonomy]

American viewers of history seem to have an urge to define everything in political terms native to the continent.

Not sure what is exclusive to North American politics about the widely-used English words “conservative” and “liberal.”

Hobbes42:

Never mind the fact that the Catholic Church isn’t a political organization, is not a democracy, and “conservative” and “liberal” constructs have literally no value whatsoever for it.

Instead, as said before-we have handed down to us the descriptive terms orthodox, and heterodox. That, and the term faithful, and heretical. In Communion, and Excommunicated. (I am not claiming that anyone fits in here)

Why not use them? It’s better to talk about the Holy Church in terms that belong to Her.

OK, let’s try this out. Suppose I say that Pope John Paul took a more liberal approach than Pope Benedict to the canonization of saints. Should I instead say that John Paul was more orthodox than Benedict, or more heterodox? Or was John Paul more faithful or more heretical than Benedict on this issue?

Just trying to get the wording right.

 

[manualman]

Can’t recall who I stole this idea from, but it’s spot-on. “The struggle in the church is not really between “conservatives and liberals” but between those who believe in a personal God who revealed truths about Himself and established the magisterium to safeguard those revealed truths… and those who don’t.”

Unfortunately, those who don’t all too often seem to have no compunction at all about attempting to redefine Catholicism according to their own vision instead of trying to humbly conform themselves to God’s will. Self-idolatry is perhaps the worst sort of all!

I can see why some believing catholics are frustrated that Pope Francis seems to be unwilling to refute error and confront those seeking to spread it. We’ve had since 1978 popes that have done that increasingly consistently over time and we’ve come to think of it as our right as catholics to have the pope watching our back in a hostile culture.

But maybe it’s time for us to grow up and stand on our own feet. Maybe we should carry the burden on our own so that he can credibly reach out and make the invitation to relationship with Christ without people prejudging him as a grumpy old man who wants to control them. That’s the danger in a Catholicism that the pagans perceive as primarily about rules. We AREN’T primarily about rules. We’re primarily about freedom to realize the full potential of humanity as God envisioned that. The rules are merely guardrails designed to help us stay on the straight and narrow road that leads there. But the THERE is what this is about. The THERE is knowing and loving God after the destructive effects of sin is removed from our lives and Grace takes its place.

I, for one, would be just fine if the situation of the last 30 years truly were reversed. Wouldn’t it be great if all the local dioceses, the catholics schools and universities, the catholic charities offices, the national bishops conferences were chock full of zealous believing catholics willing to suffer if needed in order to put Christ first and put fidelity to his Word before all else? I’d take that in return for a mushy feel-good pope who added nothing to the world’s comprehension of the gospel and was unwilling to take a stand on anything. We’ve had the opposite of that for the last 30 years. (Note, that I’m not saying Francis is like that. I’m saying I’d take that sort of role reversal if it was offered!)

 

[zz912]

Greetings…You Ultra Conservatives do not represent the majority of Roman Catholics. The majority of Roman Catholics are involved in their parishes trying to live Christian lives by practicing the Sermon on the Mount! Not talking about doctrinal issues that you people seem to love to do. Re read yesterdays gospel…Matthew 23 … The scribes and pharisees their hypocrisy and vanity! I think Cardinal Burke should take at good lesson from Matthew 23!

Actually, the majority of Catholics don’t even attend Mass. They’ve left the faith.

I have a question for you: Is someone who violates the doctrines of the faith living a Christian life?

 

[Joe_5859]

Can’t recall who I stole this idea from, but it’s spot-on. “The struggle in the church is not really between “conservatives and liberals” but between those who believe in a personal God who revealed truths about Himself and established the magisterium to safeguard those revealed truths… and those who don’t.”

Unfortunately, those who don’t all too often seem to have no compunction at all about attempting to redefine Catholicism according to their own vision instead of trying to humbly conform themselves to God’s will. Self-idolatry is perhaps the worst sort of all!

I can see why some believing catholics are frustrated that Pope Francis seems to be unwilling to refute error and confront those seeking to spread it. We’ve had since 1978 popes that have done that increasingly consistently over time and we’ve come to think of it as our right as catholics to have the pope watching our back in a hostile culture.

But maybe it’s time for us to grow up and stand on our own feet. Maybe we should carry the burden on our own so that he can credibly reach out and make the invitation to relationship with Christ without people prejudging him as a grumpy old man who wants to control them. That’s the danger in a Catholicism that the pagans perceive as primarily about rules. We AREN’T primarily about rules. We’re primarily about freedom to realize the full potential of humanity as God envisioned that. The rules are merely guardrails designed to help us stay on the straight and narrow road that leads there. But the THERE is what this is about. The THERE is knowing and loving God after the destructive effects of sin is removed from our lives and Grace takes its place.

I, for one, would be just fine if the situation of the last 30 years truly were reversed. Wouldn’t it be great if all the local dioceses, the catholics schools and universities, the catholic charities offices, the national bishops conferences were chock full of zealous believing catholics willing to suffer if needed in order to put Christ first and put fidelity to his Word before all else? I’d take that in return for a mushy feel-good pope who added nothing to the world’s comprehension of the gospel and was unwilling to take a stand on anything. We’ve had the opposite of that for the last 30 years. (Note, that I’m not saying Francis is like that. I’m saying I’d take that sort of role reversal if it was offered!)

Well put. Interesting point.

 

[FollowChrist34]

There’s an interesting observation I’ve seen made around the internet.

While Rome under JPII and BXVI was “conservative,” it is the case that there was a huge number of “liberal” episcopates. So while Rome may have been a certain way, it is certainly the case that gazillions of chanceries and parishes–probably a majority of them–were hostile places for just plain old orthodox Catholicism, not even considering traditionalism. That’s why these recent Catholic colleges like TAC and Ave Maria were built in the first place: to foster a “regrounding” if you get what I mean in basic good old orthodox Catholicism, going back to the roots of the saints, scriptures and philosophy in a very real, non-ideological sense.

The reaction (key word here) in the post-Vatican II years was decidedly orthodox. That is because, on the ground at least, for huge numbers of Catholics the experience was just the opposite. I want to say this–everyone knows it anyway–without being specifically condemnatory towards persons.

It’s no secret to say that the way Rome was under JPII and BXVI/Ratzinger was often not reflected on the local level. In fact it took until the late 1990s or so to really see a difference. I make this determination based on articles and literature contemporary to that time.

So I don’t see what self-style “liberals” had to complain about during the reigns of BXVI and JPII. While they may accuse them of being conservative, even if it is a misplaced and misguided accusation, it is also the case that the real situation on the ground was anything but conservative. So if I were having a conversation, my question would be, why did it matter to you who was Pope if you had your own little isolated parish that jibed with you ideologically? “Amchurch” doesn’t really exist anymore, no, but still, from historical accounts I don’t think it has ever been difficult to be a “liberal” Catholic since Vatican II. The only people popularly persecuted and ridiculed were the Catechism-toting catholic.com types (I use this description charitably) and self-styled traditionalists.

So, again, my question: When has it ever been hard to be a so-called “liberal” Catholic in the United States since Vatican II? Answer: almost never, almost nowhere. What did these (self-styled) “liberal” Catholics complain about even under the heyday of JPIIBXVI? The vast majority of major Catholic universities to this day are shameful bastions of unorthodoxy at their worst and meek watered-down I’m-okay-you’re-okay institutions at their very, very, very best and it is no scandal, nor is it lacking in charity, to say it.

So there’s this dichotomy of Rome-was-a-certain-way-but-local-Churches-were-completely-different that existed for a really long time. I don’t understand what any “liberal” Catholic had to complain about. For the record I’ve never had anyone say to me, “You’re so pre-Vatican II!” but if anyone did I think I’d become nauseated.

I really really really don’t want to seem uncharitable but I am tempted to say, “What do you care what JPII said in his countless encyclicals, it’s not like you ever listened anyway?” I hesitate to post this sentence but I think it captures sentiments well.

Thank you for the having the courage to post this. This is exactly what I have experienced for the last 17 years. I am actually MORE puzzled now by the chasm between the so-called conservative US bishops and the widespread liberal tendencies and practices I experience in my local Church life. Two different planets. I cannot figure out what is going on or why it is like this. It makes me uncomfortable. And there is this feeling in the air that if you ask questions, you lack faith and/or are being divisive.

 

[anthony022071]

Ever read Ron Conte’s material? Definitely not orthodox yet definitely conservative. If you want to use some kind of mangled logic to suggest that he’s not conservative, fine, but trust me, no one’s gonna mistake that man for a liberal. There’s plenty like him, too.

So I don’t see where you’re coming from on the orthodox = conservative thing.

I’ve never heard about him. When I say conservative Catholics,I mean those who stick with the traditional,orthodox teachings and practices of the Church. Conservative is not just a political label and it does not necessarily mean someone who believes in capitalism. It basically means someone who sticks with traditional beliefs and practices,including natural law morality.

 

[RACJ]

usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/01/pope-francis-catholics-americans-culture/18263293/
*
There are some false or misleading statements in this article,such as these:*

< "The conservatives had it all their way for about 30 years, and now the shoe might be on the other foot,’’ says the Rev. Paul Sullins, a priest who teaches sociology at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. "Now they feel on the outside a little bit, which is exactly how the progressives used to feel.’’ >
*
Conservatives have not had it all their way for the past 30 years. Liberals and lukewarm people have been the dominant influence. *

< Any doubt that times are changing ended with last month’s Vatican synod, or church council, which brought hundreds of bishops and other Catholics to Rome for two weeks to discuss the application of church teaching on marriage and family life. >
*
The Church is not changing its doctrine,and the upcoming synod will not likely propose changes to pastoral care that will undermine the Church’s teaching on marriage and family life.
*
< Liberals cheered a preliminary report on the proceedings that, consonant with Francis’ inclinations, expressed welcome to gay men and lesbians of faith and hope for gentler treatment of Catholics who live together outside of marriage or have divorced and remarried outside the church (and thus cannot receive Communion).

Conservatives then rallied and struck much of what they found offensive in the first report from the synod’s final one — a move widely reported as a rebuff of Francis. But the damage was done. >
*
The mid-term report was not consonant with Francis’ inclinations,and the bishops who opposed it did not rebuff him. *

< In yet another interview, he said that ‘‘everyone has his own idea of good and evil’’ and should ‘‘follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them’’ — a seeming rejection of a black-or-white view of morality. >
*
The pope does not have a relativist view of morality.*

< David Gibson, an experienced church observer, wrote in a Religion News Service article that Cupich’s appointment "may signal the beginning of the end of three decades of conservative dominance.’’ >
*
Conservatives have not been dominant.*

< Accordingly, many Catholics said they feel the world just doesn’t get Francis. When he made headlines last week for saying that the Big Bang theory of the universe’s origin was consistent with Catholic theology and cosmology, Smith felt frustrated.

Although the pope’s remark frequently was presented by news media as another example of the pope’s outspoken liberalism, she knew he was merely repeating a position announced in 1951 by Pope Pius XII and reiterated by several popes since. >
*
Pope Pius XII did not really say that the Big Bang theory was consistent with Catholic theology. He said that science verifies the mutability of things,including their origin and their end,and the teleological order of the cosmos,and that scholars regard the idea of creation as compatible with their scientific conceptions and research.

A scientific theory can only be consistent with Catholic theology if it is logical and true. *

I neither agree nor disagree with Big Bang. I lean toward disagreeing with this, but I do not believe in a 10,000 year universe either. All I know is that a close friend of mine has stopped going to church b/c Pope Francis has made several pronouncements against beliefs that he has held all his life. My wife feels the same about him, but SHE will never stop attending Mass regardless of the Pope’s words.

 

[Sarcelle]

My biggest pet peeve is those who try to label Catholics in political terms…Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, etc. etc.

There’s only two choices: A Catholic that’s loyal to Church teaching and one who is not. There’s no in between.

This is my pet peeve too.

The Church is not the natural extension of US politics.

 

[anthony022071]

My biggest pet peeve is those who try to label Catholics in political terms…Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, etc. etc.

Those are not just political terms. They refer to attitudes and philosophies and ideologies, which are prior to political preferences.

There’s only two choices: A Catholic that’s loyal to Church teaching and one who is not. There’s no in between.

The people who tend to be loyal to Church teaching are conservatives,and those who tend to be disloyal are liberals and progressives. There are many people who are “in between”,and who think that they are true Catholics.

 

[Sarcelle]

Those are not just political terms. They refer to attitudes and philosophies and ideologies, which are prior to political preferences.

The people who tend to be loyal to Church teaching are conservatives,and those who tend to be disloyal are liberals and progressives. There are many people who are “in between”,and who think that they are true Catholics.

The problem is the words conservative and liberal are.so loaded with political baggage. This is the case especially with US Catholics.

Why can’t we employ the words orthodox and heterodox. More precise.

 

[manualman]

My biggest pet peeve is those who try to label Catholics in political terms…Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, etc. etc.

The social philosophy of “progressivism” is actually directly contrary to catholic philosophy and can be unequivocally denounced as false and dangerous by it’s very nature.

The “progressive” ideology is one that posits that human society is always advancing from more primitive cultures and values to more advanced and desirable. It’s perhaps the dumbest assumption one can think of and I suspect that the only reason anyone falls for it is because they haven’t really considered the implications.

On the surface, it appears true because Western civilization has been undergirded by 2,000 years of the benefits of Grace and revelation thanks to Christ. We really HAVE steadily advanced. But it’s not because of some deep and irresistible force innate to humanity, it’s because we’ve had a society relatively open to Grace and truth. This CAN be lost and will be as society continues to reject Grace and the truth of the gospel. Watch and see.

Progressivism innately posits that new ideas embraced by the majority of the people of goodwill will always represent a genuine advance in civilization. It fundamentally misreads the human condition and the reality of Original Sin, which is why it is so insidiously dangerous! This is why progressives always fall for new ideas that appear to be rooted in goodwill. It’s why they loved Marxism, it’s why they were eugenicists, it’s why they loved the divorce/sexual revolution, it’s why they support the masculinization of women, it’s why they love government programs as the solution to all problems, etc. These are all big ideas that purport to be improvements!

 

[Digitonomy]

Why can’t we employ the words orthodox and heterodox. More precise.

Because they are not more precise; “conservative” and “liberal” have specific meanings that are distinct from “orthodox” and “heterodox.”

See my post #25 above.

 

[1newcatholic]

So, again, my question: When has it ever been hard to
be a so-called “liberal” Catholic in the United States since Vatican II?

"Liberal Conservative Catholic authority: “Liberal Professors Should Be Taken Out And Shot”

From EWTN: “Liberalism is a Sin”

“Does Doctrine Matter to Liberal Catholics?”

Also, For the record, “liberal” and “conservative” have political connotations, but they are not purely political words. It is a mistake to try and suppress the terms in an effort to depoliticize Catholic discourse–I know liberal orthodox and conservative non-orthodox. Plus, “orthodox” has ambivalent meanings by itself, meaning 1) A specific Christian tradition 2) a general conformity to accepted teaching

 

[YoungTradCath]

"Liberal Conservative Catholic authority: “Liberal Professors Should Be Taken Out And Shot”

From EWTN: “Liberalism is a Sin”

“Does Doctrine Matter to Liberal Catholics?”

Also, For the record, “liberal” and “conservative” have political connotations, but they are not purely political words. It is a mistake to try and suppress the terms in an effort to depoliticize Catholic discourse–I know liberal orthodox and conservative non-orthodox. Plus, “orthodox” has ambivalent meanings by itself, meaning 1) A specific Christian tradition 2) a general conformity to accepted teaching

You still didn’t answer my question. And the first link has nearly nothing in common with the latter two.

It’s super easy to be a “liberal” Catholic, has been since Vatican II, and they are not significantly inconvenienced for it and discriminated against the way that other Catholics have been in the US. The group of Catholics most hated and reviled and spit upon and repressed and injured in the post-Vatican II years have been those described as “conservative.” This was consistent on a widespread diocesan level in very many places from the 1960s to the mid 2000s probably and it is still the case in large Catholic institutions and many (maybe a majority) of parishes throughout the country.

We both know what the term “orthodox” means in a Catholic context, let’s not decontextualize and say, “Well the Orthodox are called Orthodox so therefore orthodox doesn’t mean anything.” I reject that. We both know what’s meant when someone types “orthodox.” Suffice it to say I don’t accept the, “But we had conservative popes for 35 years, woe is me!” “liberal” arguments. Catholicism on the ground was often radically unreflective of those papacies and in many places still is (but this has shrunk dramatically).

 

[Ron_Conte]

Its almost unavoidable that people use the words liberal and conservative,unless we use the words unorthodox and orthodox,or traditional and untraditional,because there really are those differences among Catholics. Liberal Catholics are those who abandon or deviate from Church teaching and traditional practices,and conservative Catholics are those who,more or less,stick with Church teaching and traditional practices.

Some of Jesus’ teachings would be considered liberal, some moderate, some conservative. It is not true that conservative equals faithful to Jesus’ teaching and liberal equals unfaithful. There are doctrinal errors among conservatives as well as among liberals. But on open questions, the faithful are free to believe whatever they think is true, as long as it does not imply a contradiction to any doctrine.

The correct answer to any theological question is not always the most conservative answer. For example, Pope Saint John Paul II expresses a fairly liberal view of membership in the Church:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19950531en.html

Pope Francis is liberal but orthodox. So was Pope John 23.

 

[Joe_5859]

You still didn’t answer my question. And the first link has nearly nothing in common with the latter two.

It’s super easy to be a “liberal” Catholic, has been since Vatican II, and they are not significantly inconvenienced for it and discriminated against the way that other Catholics have been in the US. The group of Catholics most hated and reviled and spit upon and repressed and injured in the post-Vatican II years have been those described as “conservative.” This was consistent on a widespread diocesan level in very many places from the 1960s to the mid 2000s probably and it is still the case in large Catholic institutions and many (maybe a majority) of parishes throughout the country.

We both know what the term “orthodox” means in a Catholic context, let’s not decontextualize and say, “Well the Orthodox are called Orthodox so therefore orthodox doesn’t mean anything.” I reject that. We both know what’s meant when someone types “orthodox.” Suffice it to say I don’t accept the, “But we had conservative popes for 35 years, woe is me!” “liberal” arguments. Catholicism on the ground was often radically unreflective of those papacies and in many places still is (but this has shrunk dramatically).

I don’t think that it is true that the “liberals” have never been inconvenienced nor had reason to fear in the past 30 years. Many have seen the writing on the wall as the leadership of the Church has shifted without them. And they’ve been heading off towards retirement with the thought that all the work they have done is being completely undone.

I could share stories, but I probably shouldn’t.