M
- Status
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Why do people stay in the Church when they disagree? Whatever liberal views a person has, there is some church out there that agrees with him/her. Why do these people stay? This I will never understand.
M
Mijoy2
Guest
I have a theory, Lazerlike42. It is because the vast majority of Catholics are unaware, for a variety of reasons, that the Catholic Church teaches that they are to obey teachings on matters of faith and morals. I know this is true with many of the people I know. I hear statements such as** I don’t believe in or support that teaching** or the Catholic Church is wrong on this/that matter.
This is why I think this article is a step in the right direction. We do not desire to lose a single person from the church. Articles such as this one gets the word (teaching) out that the Catholic Church calls us to obey. More importantly it gets the word out via the liberal themself (herself in this case). We may think that a posted speed limit sign is unreasonable in a particular area. But this reasoning doesn’t mean we can speed through it.
For those that read this article that are of the belief they can support these things and remain in good standing will be enlightened otherwise. Which, if they love the church, will cause them to pause and think. Then, hopefully, the decision they make will be the loving one. Which is what the church teaches.
What is being so terribly misunderstood is that the Catholic Church teaches love and from this love the doctrine flows. I have much sympothy because it took a long long time for this to penetrate this marble skull.
F
Fr_Chuck
Guest
Married priest are not being liberal, as there are married priest and were one or two married Bishops.
First in other Orders other than Latin or Roman some priests are allowed to marry. Also even in the Latin or Roman rite they often accept priests from other faiths (Anglican, Orthodox, some of the Independent Catholic groups, Lutheran) into the church that are married and allow them to remain married.
I do agree with some of the other points, just wanted to do a reminder that married clergy is merely for one Rite and is merely a rule not doctrine.
First in other Orders other than Latin or Roman some priests are allowed to marry. Also even in the Latin or Roman rite they often accept priests from other faiths (Anglican, Orthodox, some of the Independent Catholic groups, Lutheran) into the church that are married and allow them to remain married.
I do agree with some of the other points, just wanted to do a reminder that married clergy is merely for one Rite and is merely a rule not doctrine.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Cite? I’ve never heard of this.
B
Beaver
Guest
My theory goes like this, many catholic colleges had professors of theology that taught thier own ideologies before getting approval from Rome. They pushed their liberal agenda via the educational degrees. They used these degrees to overstep Rome, but human knowledge is not the answer, Divine knowledge is, and now they will not let go of their egos.
T
tee_eff_em
Guest
Respectfully, I would say regarding the Latin rite: The advocation to ordain married men as presbyters *is *liberal, but it is *not *unorthodox.
:twocents:
tee
B
Brain
Guest
nah, the liberal catholics can stay, but they need to shape up!
that is they should stay so long as they are trying to become ex-liberal catholics
that is they should stay so long as they are trying to become ex-liberal catholics
S
siamesecat
Guest
I read the article this morning and totally agreed with it. I’ve been saying this for a very long time. Most people I know say “Well religions ok as long as you dont take it too seriously like those religious nuts”…but I’m the total opposite. I dont believe in a religion but if I really did believe there was a God and living by his rules was crucial to my salvation, I’d be a “religious nut” too, and follow all teachings. It doesn’t make sense to say “I love Jesus but I’m not going to follow any of his teachings because the Bible isnt real its old”…if the Bible isn’t true how do you believe in Jesus? End of my rant lol. if you dont agree with the teachings, why are you in the Church?
R
Riley259
Guest
Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi wrote an op-ed column in response to the Massachusetts bishops request for a religous clause exempting Catholic charities from gay adoptions. She ponders whether liberal Catholics should leave the church altogether because of this and other things that the church has done. Her tone is arrogant, self-righteous and just plain misguided. In response to the Vatican’s document saying that gay adoptions are gravely immoral, she says, “If you agree with those principles, you are, according to the Vatican, a Catholic in good standing. If you don’t, you’re not. Liberals raised as Catholics refuse to accept this reality. We think we can be pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-gay adoption, and in favor of married and female priests and still call ourselves Catholic.” So why do off the rail liberals like Vennochi still go to church and consider themselves Catholic? She offers a response: “The stubborness is rooted in nostalgia, inertia, and arrogance. We cherish some memories, like the lacy white commonion dress and the innocence of childhood confessions. Despite spotty attendence, we enjoy the ritual of Sunday Mass. We also believe our views are the enlightened ones and Rome’s represent the neanderthal; eventually we will get a pope who understands that.” That last statement just made me plain mad and highlights how superficial and lost the progressive dissidents are. So by saying that the Magisterium is unenlightened and “neanderthal”, she in essence (and I assume she speaks for those of like ilk) is saying that Jesus was and is wrong - in other words, God was wrong in giving authority to the Magisterium in speaking truth when it comes to issues of faith and morals. I wonder if these liberal dissidents really know what they are implying when they say those sort of outrageous things. I’m sure that most readers of the Boston Globe will lap this stuff up. Very sad.
boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/05/should_liberals_leave_catholic_church/
boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/05/should_liberals_leave_catholic_church/
R
Riley259
Guest
Which part do you totally agree with - Joan Vennochi’s assertions that the Church is unenlightened and “neanderthal” or that liberals should leave the church? If it’s the former then I profoundly disagree with you but if it’s the latter then I agree - the progressive liberals in the church should just leave so we can clean house. Better to have a smaller but orthodox church with members who are faithful to the Magisterium. See my similar thread linked below:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=101873
M
mike182d
Guest
Yes, I too would be interested in a reference. Even the Eastern Orthodox who allow married priests do not allow a Bishop to be married. I can’t see the Latin rite being more liberal than the Eastern Church in these regards.
C
Crumpy
Guest
This question hits me between the eyes like a 2x4. I have been very reactionary because of liberals in my local church.
Rather, I should say it strikes me to the heart, because Jesus told us that the ‘wheat would grow up with the chaff’ but be separated at the harvest time.
Jesus’ answer is the best answer. In my case, I am seeing too much ‘chaff’ around me. To illustrate my frame of mind, I feel I have been choking from the chaff.
Unlike wheat or chaff, we can change, when we have a change of heart. I hope – and pray – that those who so noisily oppose Church teaching and doctrine would have a change of heart and return to be wheat again. We need them. We need them back.
We need them and their energy to work as hard as they have been in the vineyard of the Lord, working for souls.
Rather, I should say it strikes me to the heart, because Jesus told us that the ‘wheat would grow up with the chaff’ but be separated at the harvest time.
Jesus’ answer is the best answer. In my case, I am seeing too much ‘chaff’ around me. To illustrate my frame of mind, I feel I have been choking from the chaff.
Unlike wheat or chaff, we can change, when we have a change of heart. I hope – and pray – that those who so noisily oppose Church teaching and doctrine would have a change of heart and return to be wheat again. We need them. We need them back.
We need them and their energy to work as hard as they have been in the vineyard of the Lord, working for souls.
F
Franze
Guest
Respect the question, they don´t have to leave the church but not be liberal anymore.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The article does not say anything about being in good standing - one is Catholic, or one is not. Just as one is Baptist or not, or whatever. Membership of the Church is not a reward for being good - continued membership of it is not a reward either; any more than being a member of a family is. People are Christians by the grace of God, not because of the approval of others. And to be Christian is a Divine vocation, founded (again) on the Will of God: what anyone may think of Christians, whether to their credit or blame, whether deservedly or not, is therefore supremely irrelevant.
This what I don’t understand about so much thinking among Catholics - it’s concerned with power and who holds it, with Church politics, with who is in a position to shove around who, and with following rules, and booting out people not in one’s own group; and meeting the (rather ill-defined) expectations of one’s co-religionists.That’s not the Christian theological thinking that is appropriate to the unique thing which as the Church - it’s worldly, all through. And how does that build up the Church ? The Church is not one competing political party among others - or shouldn’t be.
From later in the article: “Catholics who don’t agree with church doctrine are doing the unexpected – sticking around where they are unwelcome, rather than moving on.”
Why should they move on ? They are as truly members of the Catholic Church as any other bearers of the Christian name in union with Rome. What has being “unwelcome” to do with anything ? One would hope all Catholics - whatever their thinking, whether they approve of each other or not - stay in the Church. Membership of the Church is not based on the approval of self-appointed judges, so it is not destroyed by their disapproval. Maybe there are those who could find fault with them in turn, as being themselves insufficiently Catholic in some respect. If Church membership could be destroyed by the disapproval of others, it would be in constant danger of destruction - we would not be breathing the Life of Christ which is given us all in His Spirit, but would all have the equivalent of severe asthma - for we would cease to be Catholic every single time some one took into his head to be severe against us. This would utterly destroy the Church visible here in earth.
“Conservative Catholics hold the power, not just in Rome but in the United States. When mobilized against abortion and gay marriage, they are a potent political force.”
No they don’t, not in the slightest, for no one does - God does. No man is powerful, but God alone. Not the Church, not the US, not any nation, state, party, or faction, nor all together, but God alone, before Whom the nations are like dust in the balance. And if the nations are dust, how much more more so are groups within them ? Few sillinesses are as silly as that of being overawed by other human beings. It’s because we are nothing, that all of us need God’s grace and mercy.
BTW: it could have been made clearer that the post is almost entirely a quotation from the article; otherwise it’s not clear what is quotation, and what the poster’s own view of the matter. It isn’t always clear which parts of the article itself are the author’s own comments, and which are comment as news. ##
J
Jennifer123
Guest
It’s my understanding that it’s a discipline, not a doctrine.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/MARPRIE.htm
G
goofyjim
Guest
No, we need sinners on both ends of the spectrum to balance things out. Otherwise some might think they are already saints.
D
Digitonomy
Guest
You are quite possibly right, but your link says nothing one way or the other - married bishops are simply not mentioned.
J
Jennifer123
Guest
You’re right - it doesn’t mention married bishops, sorry.
But it does have info on the account of married priests within the Latin rite. I guess one of these men could be become bishop if God wills it?From the link:
"Finally, concerning married Episcopalian clergy becoming Catholic priests, “the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church’s conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group.”
…
"If the married former Episcopalian minister were ordained as a Catholic deacon and then priest, he would be exempt by a special favor from the Holy Father of making the promise of celibacy; however, if he later became a widower, then he would be bound to a celibate lifestyle and could not remarry. In the future, if a lay member of one of these reunited parishes wanted to become a Catholic priest, he would be required to take the promise of celibacy.
The promise of celibacy is waived as a favor to those married clergy, given their particular circumstances and their desire to unite with the Catholic Church. However, the Holy Father has repeatedly affirmed the discipline of celibacy on Roman Catholic clergy of the Latin Rite. (Outside the United States, the Eastern Rites do not require the promise of celibacy except for bishops.)"
M
m134e5
Guest
That’s because they don’t!
- Status