I don’t have enough information about the situation in the original post to make a judgment (there’s nothing per se wrong with a Catholic school educating a child from such a household), but in general, the Bible warns about being “progressive.”
**2:John 9 **Anyone who is so progressive as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son.
usccb.org/bible/2john/1
That is a most peculiar translation of that verse.
Most constructions look more like this:
2 John 9, New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
9
Everyone who does not abide in the teaching of Christ, but goes beyond it, does not have God; whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
One would expect that progressive Catholics would see the accretions of the past many centuries as going beyond the teachings of Christ, while perceiving themselves as abiding in the original, foundational teaching.
Another way of contrasting the approaches, (
which I am cribbing from elsewhere), contrasts outwardly-directed rigorists with inwardly-directed empathists: the one takes their lead from exterior authorities and seek to conform with some degree of scrupulosity. The other seeks more to be guided by the Holy Spirit and by Christlike compassion and concern.
Each approach has advantages and pitfalls. External authorities can be mistaken or corrupt, and scrupulosity can become Pharisaical; while an inward guide can be dominated by one’s own weaknesses, and empathy or compassion can be misplaced.
A third illustration is that of the adventurer who is equipped with a detailed map with which to explore a rugged and challenging trail with rangers frequently available; as opposed to someone who has a very simple map and a compass, with which to navigate an often overgrown and uncertain path, where the guides may be few and as uncertain as the pilgrim themselves.
In each example, the Progressive Catholic would tend to see themselves in the second category. The point being made is that Progressive Catholics are striving to be faithful in their own right, even if their sense of faithfulness differs from that of theologically or ecclesially Conservative Catholics.
One other way of viewing this is is via the prism of James Fowler’s
Stages of Faith Development and Kohlberg’s
Stages of Moral Development. Each of these schemae posit that humans pass through certain phases, partly shaped by the human maturation process and partly determined by inherent disposition.
Most people come to abide somewhere in the middle of these spectrums:
Stage Three in
Fowler’s Stages of Faith. About half of us pass through a phase of “
crises”, of doubt or spiritual emptiness, or rebellion; but we typically revert back to
Stage Three.
Only about a third move upward on the scale to Stage Five, and while these stages measure development and not “faithfulness”, those who have progressed to those upper stages of seem incongruent to those who spend their lives in the more conventional patterns of Stage Three. Their devotion, commitment, and orthodoxy may indeed appear questionable to some of those in the majority.
owlcation.com/humanities/James-Fowler-and-Spiritual-Development-Stages-of-Faith
boundless.com/psychology/textbooks/boundless-psychology-textbook/human-development-14/theories-of-human-development-70/kohlberg-s-stages-of-moral-development-268-12803/
Hope this sheds some further light on the subject.
