Progressive Catholics say reform must begin with Church governance

[Windmill]

The problem with any talk about moving towards a democratic form of church governance is that it is completely impossible. The Church, by her nature, is hierarchical. To create a church that is democratic goes against her divine constitution (IOW, how Jesus Christ created her). If they made the Church democratic, she would cease to be the Church Christ founded - in fact there would be no church. Christ would then be a liar for saying that the gates of Hell would not prevail over the Church. Therefore, if he’s a liar, he’s not God. Etc… So, when I hear talk like this about church governance, it really exposes a profound lack of catechesis on the part of the critics.

As to the individual issues that were brought up (birth control, women’s ordination, etc…), they try to cloak it under the veil of “dialog”. IOW, they plant a seed of doubt first in order to build up the expectation of change, so that when the Church reiterates its consistent teaching, everybody will be upset. This is what happened with Humana Vitae. The problem with this is that it is ultimately a spurning of authority. These people are not approaching the hierarchy with an attempt to understand anything. They know from the beginning what they want, and what they want is completely opposite what the hierarchy is charged by Our Lord to teach. They are going into such “dialogs” with one goal in mind: change Christ’s church into something else than what it was created as.

The news media is doing the same thing, but with a different intent. Don’t be fooled, brothers and sisters. The secular news media is not interested in changing the Catholic Church. They want it GONE because it is now the lone voice of reason standing amidst the winds of hedonism and secularism. They will build up the same false expectations as the liberal Catholics, but they are different in that they KNOW the Church will not change. They want Catholics to get used to ignoring their insensitive Church authorities, so they build up false hopes in laymen so as to create disappointment in our leadership. Their hope would be that Catholics would be so disaffected that they will leave, or at least be a voice of dissent in the Church that will ultimately cause her to topple.

Do yourself a favor and spend the time you would have been reading secular criticisms of the Church and use that time to pray for the conclave and the new Pope. If nothing else, ignoring these stories will avoid boosting their hits on their liberal websites.

 

[Lucky7]

The problem with any talk about moving towards a democratic form of church governance is that it is completely impossible. The Church, by her nature, is hierarchical. To create a church that is democratic goes against her divine constitution (IOW, how Jesus Christ created her). If they made the Church democratic, she would cease to be the Church Christ founded - in fact there would be no church. Christ would then be a liar for saying that the gates of Hell would not prevail over the Church. Therefore, if he’s a liar, he’s not God. Etc… So, when I hear talk like this about church governance, it really exposes a profound lack of catechesis on the part of the critics.

As to the individual issues that were brought up (birth control, women’s ordination, etc…), they try to cloak it under the veil of “dialog”. IOW, they plant a seed of doubt first in order to build up the expectation of change, so that when the Church reiterates its consistent teaching, everybody will be upset. This is what happened with Humana Vitae. The problem with this is that it is ultimately a spurning of authority. These people are not approaching the hierarchy with an attempt to understand anything. They know from the beginning what they want, and what they want is completely opposite what the hierarchy is charged by Our Lord to teach. They are going into such “dialogs” with one goal in mind: change Christ’s church into something else than what it was created as.

The news media is doing the same thing, but with a different intent. Don’t be fooled, brothers and sisters. The secular news media is not interested in changing the Catholic Church. They want it GONE because it is now the lone voice of reason standing amidst the winds of hedonism and secularism. They will build up the same false expectations as the liberal Catholics, but they are different in that they KNOW the Church will not change. They want Catholics to get used to ignoring their insensitive Church authorities, so they build up false hopes in laymen so as to create disappointment in our leadership. Their hope would be that Catholics would be so disaffected that they will leave, or at least be a voice of dissent in the Church that will ultimately cause her to topple.

Do yourself a favor and spend the time you would have been reading secular criticisms of the Church and use that time to pray for the conclave and the new Pope. If nothing else, ignoring these stories will avoid boosting their hits on their liberal websites.

You give progressive Cahtolics too much credit…they too know what the Church teaches. They have no regard (nor believe) in CHurch authority.

 

[tabycat]

Federal Republics work fine (is the best system) for civil government, but civil governments are not infallible magesteriums. The Church does not need a different form of government, this one has worked literally perfectly for the past 2000 years

 

[gus]

When did we go from “Cafeteria Catholics” to “Progressive Catholics”.

It is still being selfish and saying I want my way, no matter which PC term the want to use to describe themselves.

Just sayin…

Talk about an oxymoron

 

[k5thbeatle]

More to the point, I think “progressive” Catholics need to accept that they are not really Catholics at all - but simply people who “play at Catholics” - and should either review their faulty opinions or leave.

Integrity is a good thing.

Great point! I want the church to change and fit my perspective and reality because I’m not going to change is their motto.

 

[Mark121359]

THe other thing that bugs me about this question is that it is never directed at the “progressive” Catholics. Who are they to tell me and the Church what should or should not be Catholic?

Amen to that! We all know what progressive catholics want…women priests, contraception for everyone (Sandra Fluke anyone?) gay marriage, abortion rights…etc. etc. etc.

Peace, Mark

 

[buffalo]

Where is progressive Catholic in Church teaching? You are either a Catholic or not and advocating womens ordination and contraception is not Catholic

Right - you are either orthodox or heterodox.

 

[GWright]

And who are you to say who is truly catholic or not? I’m positive that if we look into your life there are many things about you that isn’t “catholic” no matter how many times you go to church.
.

Hi BigBlueCane

I am no-one to decide who is Catholic or who is not. I have no authority and I am but a miserable sinner. In my time, I have been a liar, a thief, a hypocrite and worse. And I bet that I will be some of these things again.

The Catholic Church clearly articulates what is Catholic via its Catechism and teachings.

Sinning is different from dissent. The first is understandable, expected - natural even -but dissent is none of these and it is not acceptable.

If I ever fail to properly respect my parents, or to show charity to my neighbour - and I do fail at times, believe you me - its not because I think those ideas are wrong, its because I am imperfect.

However, for someone to say - the Church is wrong about women priests, or abortion, or homosexuality, or any matter - that is not because the person is imperfect, it is because the person is arrogant. It is because the person thinks that *they know better *than Christ and his Church. It is because the person wants to change Christianity - not have Christianity change them.

Supporting a more open church, open in dialogue and less dictatorial is heresy? Really? I didn’t know the root of being a catholic is supporting the bureacracy of the church

It is not dictatorial to state and champion the truth.

I do not know if “heresy” is the right word, but it is certainly troublemaking, for people to deride the infallible teachings of the Church. Attention seeking, even (many supposedly Catholic journalists fall into this category).

The Church has considered these things and come to its conclusions. For people to ignore conclusions in order to continually drag up the same topics - to flog the same dead horses - over and over, and then claim the Church is “dictatorial” or rigid is simply not on.

Thats the problem with “progressives” - they cant ever accept a decision or conclusion which is not in their favour. The want to keep having the same discussion again and again and again until they get their own way.

But that is not going to happen.

That is why I suggested that “progressive” Catholics either toe the line, or leave. Its like Pope Benedict said himself - “better a smaller Church, than a false Church”.

To give a crude analogy:

Imagine you joined a windsurfing club and then spend the whole time moaning about windsurfing, what a waste of time it was, how stupid it was and why didn’t you all just play chess instead.

Then, when questioned why you remained a member at all, if you felt like this, you said it was because you wanted a “more open” windsurfing club.

How do you think that would go down?

You would be laughed out of the place!

 

[GWright]

THe other thing that bugs me about this question is that it is never directed at the “progressive” Catholics. Who are they to tell me and the Church what should or should not be Catholic?

Excellent point, lucky7.

 

[Morwenna]

Hi BigBlueCane

I am no-one to decide who is Catholic or who is not. I have no authority and I am but a miserable sinner. In my time, I have been a liar, a thief, a hypocrite and worse. And I bet that I be I will be some of these things again.

The Catholic Church clearly articulates what is Catholic via its Catechism and teachings.

Sinning is different from dissent. The first is understandable, expected - natural even -but dissent is none of these and it is not acceptable.

If I ever fail to properly respect my parents, or to show charity to my neighbour - and I do fail at times, believe you me - its not because I think those ideas are wrong, its because I am imperfect.

However, for someone to say - the Church is wrong about women priests, or abortion, or homosexuality, or any matter - that is not because the person is imperfect, it is because the person is arrogant. It is because the person thinks that *they know better *than Christ and his Church. It is because the person wants to change Christianity - not have Christianity change them.

It is not dictatorial to state and champion the truth.

I do not know if “heresy” is the right word, but it is certainly troublemaking, for people to deride the infallible teachings of the Church. Attention seeking, even (many supposedly Catholic journalists fall into this category).

The Church has considered these things and come to its conclusions. For people to ignore conclusions in order to continually drag up the same topics - to flog the same dead horses - over and over, and then claim the Church is “dictatorial” or rigid is simply not on.

Thats the problem with “progressives” - they cant ever accept a decision or conclusion which is not in their favour. The want to keep having the same discussion again and again and again until they get their own way.

But that is not going to happen.

That is why I suggested that “progressive” Catholics either toe the line, or leave. Its like Pope Benedict said himself - “better a smaller Church, than a false Church”.

To give a crude analogy:

Imagine you joined a windsurfing club and then spend the whole time moaning about windsurfing, what a waste of time it was, how stupid it was and why didn’t you all just play chess instead.

Then, when questioned why you remained a member at all, if you felt like this, you said it was because you wanted a “more open” windsurfing club.

How do you think that would go down?

You would be laughed out of the place!

 

[GWright]

And regarding Church governance - it was Jesus Christ himself who created the model of how His Church was to be Governed. He gave his first apostles authority on his behalf, and he gave but one - Peter, the first “Pope” - a higher authority than the rest.

I don’t see how we can change that, and still claim to be Christians.

Look at the protestants - they thought they knew better than Jesus. They thought they didn’t need the model he gave us and that they could govern their Churches by committee, or by democracy.

Where did that get them?

It got them into a death-spiral of constantly fragmenting into ever smaller groups as they continually disagree and fall out with one another.

Who wants a similar fate for the Catholic Church? Not me!

 

[Lucky7]

That is why I suggested that “progressive” Catholics either toe the line, or leave.

You know, I used to feel badly/guilty when I would think “they should just leave” because I should want them to stay in the one. true church.

But no longer. They don’t want to stay in the one true Church. They want to make it something it is not. Enough is enough.

 

[GWright]

You know, I used to feel badly/guilty when I would think “they should just leave” because I should want them to stay in the one. true church.

But no longer. They don’t want to stay in the one true Church. They want to make it something it is not. Enough is enough.

I know exactly how you feel Lucky7 - I don’t want anyone to leave.

I really wish everyone could be content and happy with the faith and its teachings.

But, ultimately, if they are going to reject Church teachings, then they are not really Catholic - they are kidding no-one but themselves - and it is they themselves who cause the issue, not the Church.

Its kind of like how God does not turn away or condemn anyone - rather, people condemn themselves, because they want God to adhere to their terms, not vice-versa.

 

[k5thbeatle]

And regarding Church governance - it was Jesus Christ himself who created the model of how His Church was to be Governed. He gave his first apostles authority on his behalf, and he gave but one - Peter, the first “Pope” - a higher authority than the rest.

I don’t see how we can change that, and still claim to be Christians.

Look at the protestants - they thought they knew better than Jesus. They thought they didn’t need the model he gave us and that they could govern their Churches by committee, or by democracy.

Where did that get them?

It got them into a death-spiral of constantly fragmenting into ever smaller groups as they continually disagree and fall out with one another.

Who wants a similar fate for the Catholic Church? Not me!

One thing I notice over and over again by the secularists attacks and that is they often will throw words out meant to back one into a corner of guilt or shame. The key is not to accept their premise in the first place. Hence dictorial or bureacracy or old-fashioned or other such terms are frequently tossed about in such arguments when the Catholic church is none of those!

 

[Windmill]

A smart Pope will consult with appropriate experts below him before making big decisions. He is not illuminated with infinite wisdom just because he is Pope. However, when progressives use “dialog” to mean “we are bringing up the question of women’s ordination”, the problem is in the very initiation of the “question.” There is no question, yet the fact that they are “starting a dialog” creates a seed of doubt that the traditional teaching is worthy of belief. This is the tactic that heterodox Catholic theologians used with Humana Vitae. By the time Pope Paul VI reiterated the traditional teaching, there were tons of couples using the Pill on the advice of confessors who were misled by the bad theologians and the secular press who were championing a change in morality (and there was a Birth Control Commission setup which further created doubt).

So the lesson here is this: when heterodox Catholics try to open up a dialog, they are really trying to draw a cloud of doubt around the issue itself.

Also, as an aside, I cringe when I hear such people refer to themselves as “progressive”. Ask yourself a critical question: “To what are they progressing?” If it isn’t a more bulletproof clarification to reinforce an existing dogma then it isn’t progress. If it seeks to create ambiguity where there once was clarity, it isn’t progress. If it tries to create a change that is 180 degrees the opposite what once was considered true, it isn’t progress.

Avoid these people and pray for them. Your first job is to protect your own faith, and such “Catholics” are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 

[Elizabeth502]

So the lesson here is this: when heterodox Catholics try to open up a dialog, they are really trying to draw a cloud of doubt around the issue itself.

Of course.

Also, as an aside, I cringe when I hear such people refer to themselves as “progressive”. Ask yourself a critical question: “To what are they progressing?” If it isn’t a more bulletproof clarification to reinforce an existing dogma then it isn’t progress. If it seeks to create ambiguity where there once was clarity, it isn’t progress. If it tries to create a change that is 180 degrees the opposite what once was considered true, it isn’t progress.

The term has burned me for a very long in the secular realm. I think you brought up an excellent rhetorical comeback, but my reaction has always been these:

(1) It immediately defines anyone opposing you as “regressive.” Clever rhetoric there. And absolutely no one calls them on it. (Even more astounding.)

(2) This may be redundant to my #1, but, to call oneself that is a value judgment; at least “liberal” and “conservative” – while often misleading and inadequate – are more neutral than “progressive” – which is a little like saying “fantastic.” Yeah, they Wrote the Book on humility. (not)

And in Catholicism, the concept of “progressive” as a faction within Catholicism does not exist. We may say that the Church as a body, guided by the Holy Spirit, evolves in the sense of expansion, influence, or revelation to the world, but much of that would be language, image, approach. It’s not going to be core doctrine, or anything affecting core doctrine. That is fixed.

The concept of a faction is a political notion, so again this is merely an imitation of and accommodation to the secular media.

Avoid these people and pray for them. Your first job is to protect your own faith, and such “Catholics” are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Amen.

 

[Lucky7]

So the lesson here is this: when heterodox Catholics try to open up a dialog, they are really trying to draw a cloud of doubt around the issue itself.

I don’t disagree with you, but I also think it’s to “enlighten” us/the Church.

 

[BigBlueCane]

THe other thing that bugs me about this question is that it is never directed at the “progressive” Catholics. Who are they to tell me and the Church what should or should not be Catholic?

They aren’t. They are just hoping for a little bit of a more open church. Its the catholic apologists who believe the church can do no wrong who then question their being catholic.

 

[BigBlueCane]

It is easy to know who is Catholic and who is not. You support the Truths of the Church, written in black and white for all to see, or you don’t. You want to be pro-choice, you are not Catholic. You want to support gay marriage, you are not Catholic. It isn’t a judgement call or a lack of a more open Church, it is a simple question of being a member of a Church which has certain rules that you must follow or you sin. It has nothing to do with how many times you go to Church but supporting and following the rules which may seem like supporting a bureaucracy to you, but it’s more than that, it is the foundation of what a Catholic is and believes. And, I am sure that over my 62 yearsI have done man things that aren’t Catholic but I assure you I have confessed and repented whenever I have made those mistakes and will into the future.

Yeah and one of those mistakes is being the final determinant of who is catholic solely based on a political stance. Sorry pro choice doesn’t mean you aren’t catholic. Supporting secular gay marriage doesn’t mean you aren’t catholic.

 

[BigBlueCane]

However, for someone to say - the Church is wrong about women priests, or abortion, or homosexuality, or any matter - that is not because the person is imperfect, it is because the person is arrogant. It is because the person thinks that *they know better *than Christ and his Church. It is because the person wants to change Christianity - not have Christianity change them.

Well guess what? That is dissent. Not because they know better. And i hardly doubt that the root of christianity hinges on whether or not there are women priests.

I do not know if “heresy” is the right word, but it is certainly troublemaking, for people to deride the infallible teachings of the Church. Attention seeking, even (many supposedly Catholic journalists fall into this category).

And thats a problem. The fact that you can’t even bring up a topic without being called non-catholic or what you just said…heretic.

The Church has considered these things and come to its conclusions. For people to ignore conclusions in order to continually drag up the same topics - to flog the same dead horses - over and over, and then claim the Church is “dictatorial” or rigid is simply not on.

The church has also come to conclusions in the past that were wrong and were changed.

That is why I suggested that “progressive” Catholics either toe the line, or leave. Its like Pope Benedict said himself - “better a smaller Church, than a false Church”.

Toe the line like a bunch of brainwashed sheep that don’t question anything? I hardly think that the church of great thinkers and philosophers like STA would support a non-thinking church. Maybe the bureacracy would which is the problem.