Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[Ani_Ibi]

Julianna:

Again, we part company. I look within for guidance. Always have. All that glitters is not gold. It is grace that keeps me on an even keel.

If you are only looking within then you have no reference point from which you can tell if your keel is even or not.

Julianna:

I can be part of the group without agreeing on each and every point.

Yes, you can. But this is a faulty analogy. You are assuming that any old group is analogous to the group called the Catholic Church.

Big question in my head: If the Church has a set of core teachings which will never change and you disagree with those core teachings – not out of a position of questioning, but out of a position of rebellion and self-righteousness – then, hey, isn’t it sort of like showing up in your scubadiving gear for a football game?

Julianna:

If we all had the same point of view, we would all look alike.

 

[Greg27]

No. Those who find themselves unable to accept the Church’s teaching should pray for the grace to understand and believe. No on should leave the Church. All should pray for grace.

Well, that approach might work for some, but not for others.

Going back to the point of the original post, I was reading Walter Kasper today and he said that faith is the obedience of the will and intellect to a certain truth in accordance with reason. If the Church proposes a dogma or belief for the faithful to follow, including for less conservative Catholics, it should explain clearly why it holds onto this teaching in clear, charitable and reasonable terms, rather than cracking down on people who seem to think differently from the rest. Even in matters of faith, in my view trying to force someone to believe something rather than by trying to convince them using sensible arguments and fostering a well-informed conscience, is certainly the wrong way to use authority.

I hear a lot of droning all the time about ‘obedience to the magesterium’ but I think it a better term would be harmony with the magesterium. The whole point of the Church’s teaching in my view, is to help the Catholic find and rest in the true Good, which is God, in this life and the next. The aim of the magesterial teaching is to allow people to know what the Good is in this life (in terms of virtuous conduct), not trying to imprison them against their will or their conscience in rigid laws which are iron-tight and allow no latitude to think. Sometimes the Roman Church seems overly fixated on enforcing authority and uniform ways of thinking, which to some people are no doubt very crushing and faith-destroying, and prompt some to leave the Church. Even more worrying are factions or groups who threaten or try to excommunicate groups of people for certain reasons.

A number of Cardinals, Bishops and also conservative lay groups seem on a campaign to ‘get rid’ of the alleged ‘liberal’ elements in the Church, and ‘liberal’ is a very wide term which could mean anything from believing in free market economics to the ordination of married men. A lot of otherwise good and faithful Catholics, who obey the Church’s teachings and are in perfectly good condition to receive the sacraments, could be expelled by witch-hunting fundamentalists whose real agenda is to remake the Church into what they think it should be, which is probably Pre-Vatican II and even further back than that, or else constantly told they have no right to consider themselves a ‘good’ Catholic or worthy to receive the Eucharist and other sacraments because of holding belief x or belief y. Something about this approach to Christians in any denomination, seems to me to be exceedingly cruel, Pharisee-like, and contrary to Christ and the Gospel, where he accepted sinners and those cast out of legalistic Jewish religion at his table.

I can’t be a member of a church in good conscience where people are constantly accusing you of not being a good Christian for not believing x or believing y, and in the end it seems to be less about going to church to worship and praise God, but instead believing in the right dogmas and belonging to the right faction or group. Nor could I ever feel at home where people try to force you into believing certain things against your will and robbing you of your freedom to make your own choice, rather than trying to convince you the right way, to give faithful assent in accordance with reason and sound intellect (as Kasper in my view rightly puts it).

 

[fix]

If you are only looking within then you have no reference point from which you can tell if your keel is even or not.

My point as well. If we each claim to be the real authroity then how is it we may ever know what is really true and what is false? We each contradict each other? What is truth?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, that approach might work for some, but not for others.

To be a Catholic one must believe in the Church’s core doctrine. Therefore one must find a way to overcome one’s disbelief.

And if you ask God to help you, He will.

So it does work for everyone – but you must be sincere in your prayers. You must want it to work.

If the Church proposes a dogma or belief for the faithful to follow, including for less conservative Catholics, it should explain clearly why it holds onto this teaching in clear, charitable and reasonable terms,
That is exactly what the Church does!!

Every dogma is explained clearly in clear, charitable and reasonable terms.

Greg27:

Even in matters of faith, in my view trying to force someone to believe something rather than by trying to convince them using sensible arguments and fostering a well-informed conscience, is certainly the wrong way to use authority.

The Church does not force people. There are people within the Church who do the most scandalous things – promoting abortion, gay marriage, and so on – and the Church is very reluctant to “crack down” on these people.

I hear a lot of droning all the time about ‘obedience to the magesterium’ but I think it a better term would be harmony with the magesterium.

Obedience, harmony, acceptance – call it what you will. But we must accept the Church’s teaching.

The aim of the magesterial teaching is to allow people to know what the Good is in this life (in terms of virtuous conduct),

And that’s exactly what the Church does.

not trying to imprison them against their will or their conscience in rigid laws which are iron-tight and allow no latitude to think.

The Church has people in prison?

Give us an example of someone “imprisoned against their will or conscience.”

Sometimes the Roman Church seems overly fixated on enforcing authority and uniform ways of thinking, which to some people are no doubt very crushing and faith-destroying, and prompt some to leave the Church. Even more worrying are factions or groups who threaten or try to excommunicate groups of people for certain reasons.

No faction or group can excommunicate anyone. In reality, one can only be excommunicated by oneself – and in rate instances the Church will officially recognize that self-excommunication.

A number of Cardinals, Bishops and also conservative lay groups seem on a campaign to ‘get rid’ of the alleged ‘liberal’ elements in the Church, and ‘liberal’ is a very wide term which could mean anything from believing in free market economics to the ordination of married men.

Wow! ** I **believe in free market economics.

A lot of otherwise good and faithful Catholics, who obey the Church’s teachings and are in perfectly good condition to receive the sacraments, could be expelled by witch-hunting fundamentalists whose real agenda is to remake the Church into what they think it should be, which is probably Pre-Vatican II and even further back than that,

How can any group expel anyone from the Church?

And how can any Catholic be a “fundamentalist?”

or else constantly told they have no right to consider themselves a ‘good’ Catholic or worthy to receive the Eucharist and other sacraments because of holding belief x or belief y. Something about this approach to Christians in any denomination, seems to me to be exceedingly cruel, Pharisee-like, and contrary to Christ and the Gospel, where he accepted sinners and those cast out of legalistic Jewish religion at his table.

I think you’re seeing monsters under your bed. You are talking about evil people who have super-powers, abilities that no one in the Church has.

I can’t be a member of a church in good conscience where people are constantly accusing you of not being a good Christian for not believing x or believing y, and in the end it seems to be less about going to church to worship and praise God, but instead believing in the right dogmas and belonging to the right faction or group. Nor could I ever feel at home where people try to force you into believing certain things against your will and robbing you of your freedom to make your own choice, rather than trying to convince you the right way, to give faithful assent in accordance with reason and sound intellect (as Kasper in my view rightly puts it).

It seems to me that a good part of your post consists of accusing others of not being a good Christian for not believing x or believing y.

 

[Greg27]

To be a Catholic one must believe in the Church’s core doctrine. Therefore one must find a way to overcome one’s disbelief.

And if you ask God to help you, He will.

So it does work for everyone – but you must be sincere in your prayers. You must want it to work.

That is exactly what the Church does!!

Every dogma is explained clearly in clear, charitable and reasonable terms.

The Church does not force people. There are people within the Church who do the most scandalous things – promoting abortion, gay marriage, and so on – and the Church is very reluctant to “crack down” on these people.

Obedience, harmony, acceptance – call it what you will. But we must accept the Church’s teaching.

And that’s exactly what the Church does.

The Church has people in prison?

Give us an example of someone “imprisoned against their will or conscience.”

No faction or group can excommunicate anyone. In reality, one can only be excommunicated by oneself – and in rate instances the Church will officially recognize that self-excommunication.

Wow! ** I **believe in free market economics.

How can any group expel anyone from the Church?

And how can any Catholic be a “fundamentalist?”

I think you’re seeing monsters under your bed. You are talking about evil people who have super-powers, abilities that no one in the Church has.

It seems to me that a good part of your post consists of accusing others of not being a good Christian for not believing x or believing y.

To this I will respond by using one of your own posts a little while back in this thread:

"You miss the point. Those who reject the Magisterium have separated themselves from the Church. They are excommunicated latae sententae (by their own actions.)

And while we should all pray for their return, we should not overlook the fact that the Church has always had the power to call her erring children to account.

The next time you go to mass, look for those who approach the priest with arms crossed over the breast at communion. These are people who cannot take communion – usually because they are divorced and remarried.

Now if people in this state cannot take communion, how are we to deny that one who rejects the Magisterium commits a mortal sin if he takes communion?"

For a heresy-hunting group which clearly wants to rid the church of liberal people, here is one example I’ve come across; it is headed by a Canon Lawyer. defide.com/

And here is what another poster here wanted done to ‘Liberals’ in the Church:

"I believe the inquisitions were a very good thing. I realize that today we shudder at the thought of evil, such as heresy, being punished. We have no problem with heretics corrupting the faith of millions and leading them to hell. We are proud of the fact that we tolerate all errors and blasphemies. That, to us, is a virtue.

Personally, I would love to have another inquisition today to have the liberals put on trial, and the bad ones burned at the state. That is justice. Instead, the liberals are allowed to run wild and corrupt the faith of thousands. That is unjust. Having the heretical liberals put on trial, tortured, and, when necessary, burned at the stake would end much of the heretical madness that has invaded the Church.

But today we are more “civil”. We allow all evil and heresy to spread under the guise of “tolerance”. Such tolerance, however, leads to the loss of many souls for all eternity. Where is the justice in that?"

By your own definition, a ‘liberal’ is in a state of mortal sin and also excommunicated latae sententae under Canon Law as a heretic. By another poster’s desire, they should be tortured and burned at the stake. By De Fide’s analysis, they should at least be formally excommunicated. All these are from Catholics who think they are doing God’s will in the Church.

I don’t think a ‘liberal’ is welcome in any sense in the CC, so there is no point in claiming to be both liberal and Catholic. And I don’t think this is a case of paranoia on my part, particularly when a poster has directly expressed the desire to burn people alive!

 

[Lance]

I am coming into this thread very late and did not take the time to read all the posts but to suggest that people should leave the Catholic Church seems to suggest that it is OK to have other churches. By ‘liberal’ I assume we are talking about ‘pro choice, pro gay agenda, etc’ people and not people who have a liberal view on other subjects such as taxes, help for the poor, support of the arts, etc. Most of the people I know who I would classify as good Catholics are liberal in their politics except for the ‘5 non negotiables’. I believe we should all be Catholic, if we have problems accepting some article of faith/doctrine we should pray for the ability to accept it, not leave the church.

 

[Greg27]

I might add my understanding of a liberal Christian would be this:

1. Acceptance of the possibility of woman’s ordination to the priesthood
2. Belief in a positive stance towards gay people (not open acceptance of a gay lifestyle, but not a belief they should be deprived of civil rights)
3. Acceptance of the primacy of individual conscience in personal belief and moral decisions
4. Belief in the need for continued reform of the Church
5. Acceptance of the possibility of ordination of married men to the priesthood

Other more extreme liberals might add these:

1. Open acceptance of gay people, including blessing of same sex unions
2. Open acceptance of women’s ordination, including to the level of Bishop
3. Support of pro-choice positions, stem cell research, and euthanasia
4. Belief in the primacy of conscience in religious belief as well as personal moral decisions

I would agree a Catholic is obliged to accepted the magesterium if they wish to remain in good standing. I don’t see how one can be a Catholic, and at the same time, could reconcile their beliefs with the Church, if they subscribe to what I understand to be liberal. In my own case, I have a theological opinion married men and also women should be allowed to be ordained, though if the CC and the Orthodox refuse on the grounds of their traditions, I do not object to that. I think a Catholic (or Orthodox) should accept the decision of their church in that matter, and to the same in moral matters such as contraception, abortion, etc. If one can’t follow even one magesterial teaching in good conscience, the only option in my view (after one has reasonably tried to accept it as best one can after consulting with priests and reflection and prayer) is to leave.

What I object to more I think is if Catholics who held these views choose to remain in the church, some other Catholics, both in the leadership roles and in the laity, seem to call for very heavy and extreme penalties to be imposed on such people, including excommunication and even the more extreme Inquisitional treatment one poster expressed in a thread here. I wonder if such measures help settle these issues, or whether they simply do more damage to the Church internally. As I am not Catholic myself anymore I can’t really comment, but reason would suggest it does not.

 

[Penny_Plain]

I can’t be a member of a church in good conscience where people are constantly accusing you of not being a good Christian for not believing x or believing y, and in the end it seems to be less about going to church to worship and praise God, but instead believing in the right dogmas and belonging to the right faction or group. Nor could I ever feel at home where people try to force you into believing certain things against your will and robbing you of your freedom to make your own choice, rather than trying to convince you the right way, to give faithful assent in accordance with reason and sound intellect (as Kasper in my view rightly puts it).

Sure you can. Just ignore those people.

In any group, there are people who appoint themselves the police – they’re the ones who take it upon themselves to decide who is a “good” whatever and who is not. Shockingly, they always seem to define themselves as good.

They have no more authority in the Church than my sister’s pet rabbit. If you find their rhetoric to be poisonous and contrary to the will of God, then ignore them.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

Well, that approach might work for some, but not for others.

And what approach, praytell, might work for those others?

Greg27:

Going back to the point of the original post, I was reading Walter Kasper today and he said that faith is the obedience of the will and intellect to a certain truth in accordance with reason.

The Church has defended reason for centuries. But you would have to read from firsthand sources to know that.

Faith and Reason
Faith can never conflict with reason

You might also want to track some of cpayne’s posts. He is an Aquinas scholar.

Greg27:

If the Church proposes a dogma or belief for the faithful to follow, including for less conservative Catholics, it should explain clearly why it holds onto this teaching in clear, charitable and reasonable terms, rather than cracking down on people who seem to think differently from the rest.

Strawman. The Church does explain clearly why it holds onto its teaching in clear, charitable, and reasonable terms. The catch is that those who hate the Church would be better served by finding out what the Church actually teaches rather than arbitrarily inventing inaccurate doctrine for the Church and then attacking that inaccurate doctrine.

Greg27:

Even in matters of faith, in my view trying to force someone to believe something rather than by trying to convince them using sensible arguments and fostering a well-informed conscience, is certainly the wrong way to use authority.

The Church does not force. That’s why you will find a long protracted period in RCIA before someone is accepted into the Church and even then not everyone is accepted or wants to be accepted. And as for using sensible arguments, there are plenty of those in the Library on the homepage of Catholic Answers and even more among the regular apologists no the CA forums.

The Church does not use emotionalism to convert. Yet you will find hugely expensive appeals to emotion among the various non-Catholic evangelists.

The Church does not use shame and intimidation to convert. Yet you will find many examples of shame and intimidation delivered in angry, outraged tones of voice among the various non-Catholic evangelists.

As for fostering a well-informed conscience, how can that happen when folks stumble upon an opinion and then move heaven and earth to defend that opinion – as opposed to asking a question and then moving heaven and earth to find the answer? Catholicism is about answers. Catholicism is about truth.

How can something be true one year and not true the next? How can something be true in one denomination and a totally different thing be true in another denomination?

Greg27:

I hear a lot of droning all the time about ‘obedience to the magesterium’ but I think it a better term would be harmony with the magesterium.

Sounds good to me. As for ‘droning,’ you might find that turning down the rhetoric knob might allow you to listen for and hear the quiet voice of reason.

Greg27:

The aim of the magesterial teaching is to allow people to know what the Good is in this life (in terms of virtuous conduct), not trying to imprison them against their will or their conscience in rigid laws which are iron-tight and allow no latitude to think.

Perhaps you have a link to what the Church its aims are. You can start from there. As for imprisoning folks, the Church does not imprison. Your implication is a strawman.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

Sometimes the Roman Church seems overly fixated on enforcing authority and uniform ways of thinking, which to some people are no doubt very crushing and faith-destroying, and prompt some to leave the Church.

Sometimes? When exactly?
Overly fixated to whom exactly?
Those who cannot adapt to being little people in a big Church, those who cannot let go of their ill-gotten influence and status, those who are blithley uninterested in studying the lives of the saints, martyrs, doctors, and popes of the Church are welcome to leave at any time. No one is stopping them.

At the same time, they are welcome to come back to the fullness of the Truth when the chaos and empty promises outside the Church become tiresome and pale. The Church is not a cookie-cutter Church. There is immense diversity here. That diversity is made possible by the firmness of the ground on which it rests: the Magisterium.

Greg27:

Even more worrying are factions or groups who threaten or try to excommunicate groups of people for certain reasons.

Certain reasons? What reasons exactly? The Church excommunicates folks who persistently, stubbornly, arrogantly bring scandal to the Church and who attempt to teach wrong doctrine to the vulnerable thus creating the climate for religious and political chaos and harm.

Would you prefer a Church Who protects the aggressors and turns a blind eye to those who suffer under the tyranny of the aggressors: an elitist church, in other words, where some parishioners are ‘special’ and others are not?

Greg27:

A number of Cardinals, Bishops and also conservative lay groups seem on a campaign to ‘get rid’ of the alleged ‘liberal’ elements in the Church,

Your language is very vague. If you have something to say then please refrain from equivocation and provide a line of reasoning with some evidence to support your claim. Innuendo does not serve communication and, in the absence of communication, it is difficult to find common ground. Is that what you want? To burn the bridges?

Greg27:

and ‘liberal’ is a very wide term which could mean anything from believing in free market economics to the ordination of married men.

I do not use prefixes for Catholics. ‘Catholic’ means universal. There are those folks who are faithful to the Magisterium. There are those folks who hate the Magisterium or any attempt to impose the authority of reason and of divine appointment on them.

Greg27:

A lot of otherwise good and faithful Catholics, who obey the Church’s teachings and are in perfectly good condition to receive the sacraments, could be expelled by witch-hunting fundamentalists whose real agenda is to remake the Church into what they think it should be, which is probably Pre-Vatican II and even further back than that,

The only witch-hunting that is going on is that imposed on the ‘good and faithful’ Catholics by those who have no interest in learning what the Catholic Church actually teaches and who prefer their own status and power over faithfulness to the Magisterium.

Greg27:

or else constantly told they have no right to consider themselves a ‘good’ Catholic or worthy to receive the Eucharist and other sacraments because of holding belief x or belief y.

There are conditions under which the Eucharist can be received.

Greg27:

Something about this approach to Christians in any denomination, seems to me to be exceedingly cruel

This is an undefended attack. Define and defend your claim claim re cruelty, please.

Greg27:

Pharisee-like

Ad hominem. Another undefended attack. Since you have not made your point so far, it was only a matter of time before your contribution started to get personal and hostile. Normally when things get personal and hostile it is a signal that the poster has exhausted his or her store of substantive premises and has therefore conceded the discussion.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

and contrary to Christ and the Gospel, where he accepted sinners and those cast out of legalistic Jewish religion at his table.

The Catholic Church is renowned as ‘The Church of Sinners.’ As for casting out legalistic Jewish religion, did Jesus not convert Saul of Tarsus? Do you equate conversion with casting out?

Greg27:

I can’t be a member of a church in good conscience where people are constantly accusing you of not being a good Christian for not believing x or believing y,

OK. You, by your own decision, you believe that you cannot be a member of the Church. Is there a problem with that?



Is it that you want others to follow you out into your own church? Or that you don’t want to go to the trouble of starting your own church and would rather stay on in rebellion, tear down what has stood with the power of the Holy Spirit for over 2M years, and nip and tuck until you achieve something that suits you with no regard to what suits Jesus?

You still have choices as long as you are within the Catholic Church. They may not be the choices you want, but they are the choices which Jesus allows you.

Greg27:

and in the end it seems to be less about going to church to worship and praise God

Here you are plainly wrong. Mass is central to Catholic life. You are grasping at straws.

Greg27:

, but instead believing in the right dogmas and belonging to the right faction or group.

Here you are again plainly wrong. You either have not bothered to do your homework or, having done it, have not struggled to adapt your preconceived notions to the body of knowledge of centuries of scholars inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Your claim here is a case of projective identification. If you have any doubt of that then what you do think the 33000 denominations represent? Obviously the impossible struggle to create the ‘right faction or group’ in the absence of the clear direction of Jesus Himself.

Greg27:

Nor could I ever feel at home where people try to force you into believing certain things against your will and robbing you of your freedom to make your own choice

If you truly feel that way, then you will not feel at home in any of the 33 000 denominations. But I suspect that is more a question of who forces whom, for the tree is known by its fruit.

If this is not so, then what was the need for Luther and his friends to forcibly convert folks to the New Religion? What was the need to threaten, to kill, to perpetrate the massacre of the 100 000 peasants? What was the need to disseminate falsehoods about the Church in the most disreputable fashion possible? What was the need to create the 8 points against the Jews which Hitler resurrected centuries later? What was the need to perpetuate landgrabbing and political chaos rather than return to the Church Who btw had addressed the identified grievances of Luther?

Why? Because it was never about the identified grievances of Luther. It was about a hidden agenda. This is less about the so-called evils of the Church and more about a lack of rigourous self-examination among those who believe they must have something to stigmatize – something to scapegoat – in order to preserve their notion of ‘self.’

Greg27:

rather than trying to convince you the right way, to give faithful assent in accordance with reason and sound intellect (as Kasper in my view rightly puts it).

The right way? You mean your way? Kasper’s way? Or the way of the Holy Spirit in selecting who are the successors of Peter?

end of post

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

What I object to more I think is if Catholics who held these views choose to remain in the church, some other Catholics, both in the leadership roles and in the laity, seem to call for very heavy and extreme penalties to be imposed on such people, including excommunication and even the more extreme Inquisitional treatment one poster expressed in a thread here. I wonder if such measures help settle these issues, or whether they simply do more damage to the Church internally.

Please describe the ‘very heavy and extreme penalties’ to which you refer.

Please describe your notion of what the ‘inquisition’ was.

Greg27:

As I am not Catholic myself anymore I can’t really comment, but reason would suggest it does not.

But you have commented.

Reason? Please set out your premises, logic, and conclusions.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

For a heresy-hunting group which clearly wants to rid the church of liberal people, here is one example I’ve come across; it is headed by a Canon Lawyer. defide.com/

Please refrain from name calling. It is an *ad hominem *attack, illogical, and therefore does not contribute to reasonable communication.

Greg27:

And here is what another poster here wanted done to ‘Liberals’ in the Church:

It would be better for you to refer to the actual Magisterial teaching of the Church, rather than to individuals who support your opinion.

Greg27:

By your own definition, a ‘liberal’ is in a state of mortal sin and also excommunicated latae sententae under Canon Law as a heretic.

Breaking news: there is no such thing as a ‘liberal’ Catholic. There is no such thing as any ‘prefixed’ Catholic. We in the Church are Catholics.

Greg27:

By another poster’s desire, they should be tortured and burned at the stake.

Please give us the exact quote.

Greg27:

By De Fide’s analysis, they should at least be formally excommunicated. All these are from Catholics who think they are doing God’s will in the Church.

Who is it who actually makes the decisions to excommunicate? Do you know?

 

[vern_humphrey]

To this I will respond by using one of your own posts a little while back in this thread:

"You miss the point. Those who reject the Magisterium have separated themselves from the Church. They are excommunicated latae sententae (by their own actions.)

And while we should all pray for their return, we should not overlook the fact that the Church has always had the power to call her erring children to account.

The next time you go to mass, look for those who approach the priest with arms crossed over the breast at communion. These are people who cannot take communion – usually because they are divorced and remarried.

Now if people in this state cannot take communion, how are we to deny that one who rejects the Magisterium commits a mortal sin if he takes communion?"

And how does that change what I said?

People who reject the teachings of the Church are excommunicated by their own act.

For a heresy-hunting group which clearly wants to rid the church of liberal people, here is one example I’ve come across; it is headed by a Canon Lawyer. defide.com/

And here is what another poster here wanted done to ‘Liberals’ in the Church:

"I believe the inquisitions were a very good thing. I realize that today we shudder at the thought of evil, such as heresy, being punished. We have no problem with heretics corrupting the faith of millions and leading them to hell. We are proud of the fact that we tolerate all errors and blasphemies. That, to us, is a virtue.

So what?

That isn’t the Church speaking – it’s just another individual with no power to implement any of that.

By your own definition, a ‘liberal’ is in a state of mortal sin and also excommunicated latae sententae under Canon Law as a heretic.

That is a false accusation.

Show me where I said “a ‘liberal’ is in a state of mortal sin and also excommunicated latae sententae under Canon Law as a heretic”

Anyone – no label attached – who rejects the teachings of the Church excommunicates himself.

By another poster’s desire, they should be tortured and burned at the stake. By De Fide’s analysis, they should at least be formally excommunicated. All these are from Catholics who think they are doing God’s will in the Church.

And I can show you posters who think all Catholic hospitals should perform abortions. What does that have to do with the Church’s position?

I don’t think a ‘liberal’ is welcome in any sense in the CC, so there is no point in claiming to be both liberal and Catholic. And I don’t think this is a case of paranoia on my part, particularly when a poster has directly expressed the desire to burn people alive!

I think that’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you come here accusing other people of saying things “a ‘liberal’ is in a state of mortal sin and also excommunicated latae sententae under Canon Law as a heretic,” or ascribing to all – or to the Church iteslf – what one or more individualds may have said, you may find some of your own hostility and prejudice reflected back on you.

When you assume and say the worst of others, accuse them falsely, and build specious arguments against the Church itself, you may sadly find some of the people you debate with are not perfect in their Christian charity.

 

[Greg27]

And how does that change what I said?

A) People who reject the teachings of the Church are excommunicated by their own act.

So what?

That isn’t the Church speaking – it’s just another individual with no power to implement any of that.

That is a false accusation.

Show me where I said “a ‘liberal’ is in a state of mortal sin and also excommunicated latae sententae under Canon Law as a heretic”

Anyone – no label attached – who rejects the teachings of the Church excommunicates himself.

And I can show you posters who think all Catholic hospitals should perform abortions. What does that have to do with the Church’s position?

I think that’s a self-fulfilling prophesy. If you come here accusing other people of saying things “a ‘liberal’ is in a state of mortal sin and also excommunicated latae sententae under Canon Law as a heretic,” or ascribing to all – or to the Church iteslf – what one or more individualds may have said, you may find some of your own hostility and prejudice reflected back on you.

When you assume and say the worst of others, accuse them falsely, and build specious arguments against the Church itself, you may sadly find some of the people you debate with are not perfect in their Christian charity.

In relation to point A), my understanding of your statement was the Church automatically excommunicated someone who questioned a magesterial teaching. Rephrased, it is clear from your statement under canon law someone who freely chooses to reject a certain magesterial teaching is automatically excommunicated from the church by the nature of the action. Then your earlier statement meant someone who presents themself for communion after freely rejecting a magesterial teaching is in a state of mortal sin.

Perhaps some of your and Ani Ibi’s claims about my going overboard earlier are correct, but I think it is pretty clear the person welcome in the Church is the one who obeys the magesterium, without question. Going back to the original question in this thread, if being ‘liberal’ means either questioning or rejecting part or all of the magesterium or its authority, then one clearly has no place in the CC, nor is one welcome there. That is how I understood ‘liberal’ to mean, and I think it is pretty clear a ‘liberal’ in that sense, is clearly unwelcome in the CC, unless of course they turn from their liberalism and fully accept the magesterial teaching on all matters. That was my increasing sense over time after coming here and also studying the Church’s teachings in more depth, and while there is room to be convinced and to think with reason, at some point there is an either/or decision; you accept the Church and its authority, and if you can’t do that (as was the case in my own situation) you have to leave. In the end I couldn’t force myself to accept something against my will and conscience, as much as I tried to accept it, and I realised I could no longer call myself a Catholic in any sense.

Clearly on the question of excommunication there are two parties involved; the church and the person. I can’t agree with your notion a person only excommunicates themselves, clearly there is a free choice on the part of a person, and the ecclesial penalty for certain choices. Making that choice in some cases results in automatic imposition of that penalty, while for others, it is imposed after a trial or other means. Clearly there are laws and rules in any institution and the question of how far they go and what liberties one has. I found myself in the end I could not reconcile personal freedom with authority, at least in the framework as the CC presents it. Clearly others are, but others cannot. I felt in the end the magesterium and the firm obligation to accept some things I strongly disagreed with, when I found out about it in greater depth, were deeply incompatible with my search for the truth.

I have tried my best, but in the end the church’s laws felt imprisoning rather than liberating, and the various penalties for questioning and dissent felt like a judge waiting to catch me in the act and throw me out of the church at the first opportunity. Clearly this is my opinion, and for others, these laws mean freedom, truth, clarity, and also protection for the integrity of the Church. The truth behind the reasoning of these laws is no doubt more of the latter, but unfortunately in my case the Canons felt far more like the first view. I’d rather have my freedom ultimately, to think freely and question, rather than submit completely and totally to an authority or authorities. I can’t over-ride that without fundamentally betraying my own conscience and who I understand myself to really be, as a person. So clearly, I can’t be a Catholic in good conscience, or ‘liberal’ in any sense at the same time, which was my original position.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Then your earlier statement meant someone who presents themself for communion after freely rejecting a magesterial teaching is in a state of mortal sin.

That is correct. There are hairs to split about the nature of the rejection, and so on, but it is generally right.

The classic example is a person who divorces and remarries, and continues to receive communion. This is a serious sin, each and every time.

I think it is pretty clear the person welcome in the Church is the one who obeys the magesterium, without question.

That’s a meaningless comment.

What do you mean “one who obeys the magisterium?” Obedience and belief are two different things – one may obey, that is attend Mass regularly, abstain when required, and so on, and yet reject the teaching of the Church in their hearts and so excommunicate themselves.

And one may believe, and yet not attend Mass regularly.

Going back to the original question in this thread, if being ‘liberal’ means either questioning or rejecting part or all of the magesterium or its authority, then one clearly has no place in the CC, nor is one welcome there.

That’s your definition of “liberal,” not mine.

One may find some doctrines hard to accept. That’s not unusual. Where one falls into sin is how one handles that issue. Does he pray for grace to understand and accept? Does he simply reject in his heart with no attempt to understand and accept? Or does he publicly reject – and perhaps seek to lead others in that path?

That is how I understood ‘liberal’ to mean, and I think it is pretty clear a ‘liberal’ in that sense, is clearly unwelcome in the CC,

That’s not how I understand it, nor do I say anyone is unwelcome in the Church. Each person must deal with his own demons – and be responsible for the outcome.

unless of course they turn from their liberalism and fully accept the magesterial teaching on all matters.

I don’t know why you persist in using labels like “liberalism.”

A person who does not accept the core doctrine of the Church has two choices – to pray and seek grace to understand and accept, or to reject. If the latter decision is taken, one can reject silently, or one can attempt to persuade others. The last act, which is open opposition to the Church puts one clearly outside the Church – through one’s own actions.

In the end I couldn’t force myself to accept something against my will and conscience, as much as I tried to accept it, and I realised I could no longer call myself a Catholic in any sense.

I am very sorry for you. You will be in my prayers – as I hope I will be in yours.

Clearly on the question of excommunication there are two parties involved; the church and the person. I can’t agree with your notion a person only excommunicates themselves,

It’s not my notion – it’s the Church’s doctrine. And if you have decided as you say " I realised I could no longer call myself a Catholic in any sense" then you have proven that position is correct – you made the decision to excommunicate yourself.

Clearly there are laws and rules in any institution and the question of how far they go and what liberties one has. I found myself in the end I could not reconcile personal freedom with authority, at least in the framework as the CC presents it.

With no intent to offend at all, your posts indicate that you do not understand what the Church presents. You do not understand the Magisterium. You seem to be in rebellion against a church that exists nowhere but in your imagination.

Clearly others are, but others cannot. I felt in the end the magesterium and the firm obligation to accept some things I strongly disagreed with, when I found out about it in greater depth, were deeply incompatible with my search for the truth.

I notice you speak only in generalities – what are the real issues?

I have tried my best, but in the end the church’s laws felt imprisoning rather than liberating, and the various penalties for questioning and dissent felt like a judge waiting to catch me in the act and throw me out of the church at the first opportunity.

Again, not meaning to offend, but that is your imagination at work. The Church is not like that.

I can’t over-ride that without fundamentally betraying my own conscience and who I understand myself to really be, as a person. So clearly, I can’t be a Catholic in good conscience, or ‘liberal’ in any sense at the same time, which was my original position.

Again, you indict the Church on generalities. What are the real issues? What is the Church teaching that you can’t accept?

 

[Ender]

-if being ‘liberal’ means either questioning or rejecting part or all of the magesterium or its authority, then one clearly has no place in the CC

• In the end I couldn’t force myself to accept something against my will and conscience
• I found myself in the end I could not reconcile personal freedom with authority.
• I felt in the end the magesterium and the firm obligation to accept some things I strongly disagreed with, when I found out about it in greater depth, were deeply incompatible with my search for the truth.
• I have tried my best, but in the end the church’s laws felt imprisoning rather than liberating
• I’d rather have my freedom ultimately, to think freely and question, rather than submit completely and totally to an authority or authorities.
• I can’t over-ride that without fundamentally betraying my own conscience and who I understand myself to really be, as a person.

I think these quotes capture the problem a lot of people face. I’m doubtful that “liberal” and “conservative” are the right terms to use; I think orthodox and heterodox are more accurate but there is a sense in which liberals are those who do not accept some significant aspect of what the Church teaches.

Regarding thinking for yourself, that is not just your right but your obligation: (Fides et Ratio 79) - “To believe is nothing other than to think with assent. Believers are also thinkers: in believing, they think and in thinking, they believe. If faith does not think it is nothing.”

Regarding freedom: (Fides et Ratio 13) - “It is not just that freedom is part of the act of faith: it is absolutely required.”

Re assent: (Dei Verbum 5) - “The obedience of faith is to be given to God who reveals, an obedience by which man commits his whole self freely to God, offering the full submission of intellect and will to God who reveals, and freely assenting to the truth revealed by him.”

Re truth: (Fides et Ratio 99) - “what is communicated in catechesis is not a body of conceptual truths, but the mystery of the living God.”

Re conscience: (Veritatis Splendor 32) - “To the affirmation that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience is unduly added the affirmation that one’s moral judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin in the conscience. But in this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and “being at peace with oneself”, so much so that some have come to adopt a radically subjectivistic conception of moral judgment … There is a tendency to grant to the individual conscience the prerogative of independently determining the criteria of good and evil and then acting accordingly.”

Augustine: “If there is no assent, there is no faith, for without assent one does not really believe.”

Ender

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

In relation to point A), my understanding of your statement was the Church automatically excommunicated someone who questioned a magesterial teaching.

I believe I pointed out early that questioning is not the problem. The Church encourages questioning. Stubborn rebellion in the face of the facts is the problem. Refusal to ask genuine questions and then to seek genuine answers is the problem. When that rebellion begins to influence the innocent such that harm results, then the Church may step in and officially recognize a reality which has already taken place – that reality being that the person has already excommunicated him or herself by his own choices.

Greg27:

Perhaps some of your and Ani Ibi’s claims about my going overboard earlier are correct, but I think it is pretty clear the person welcome in the Church is the one who obeys the magesterium, without question.

No. This is a persistant equivocation on your part. There is nothing wrong with questioning, provided that one is genuinely disposed to finding the answer to one’s question.

Greg27:

Going back to the original question in this thread, if being ‘liberal’ means either questioning or rejecting part or all of the magesterium or its authority, then one clearly has no place in the CC, nor is one welcome there.

Going back to what I said before, there is no such thing as ‘liberal’ Catholics; only Catholics.

Greg27:

That is how I understood ‘liberal’ to mean, and I think it is pretty clear a ‘liberal’ in that sense, is clearly unwelcome in the CC, unless of course they turn from their liberalism and fully accept the magesterial teaching on all matters. That was my increasing sense over time after coming here and also studying the Church’s teachings in more depth, and while there is room to be convinced and to think with reason, at some point there is an either/or decision; you accept the Church and its authority, and if you can’t do that (as was the case in my own situation) you have to leave.

Can’t isn’t what is at work here. Won’t is what is at work here. You always have the choice to be in the Church or out of the Church.

Greg27:

In the end I couldn’t force myself to accept something against my will and conscience, as much as I tried to accept it, and I realised I could no longer call myself a Catholic in any sense.

Is this a problem?

Greg27:

Clearly on the question of excommunication there are two parties involved; the church and the person. I can’t agree with your notion a person only excommunicates themselves, clearly there is a free choice on the part of a person, and the ecclesial penalty for certain choices.

Yes you can agree with the notion that a person excommunicates themselves. You just won’t. Believing that there is some element of force involved results in the displacing of personal responsibility for one’s decisions. That is not how it works in the real world. If someone makes a choice, then that person must accept the responsibility for the outcome of that choice.

Greg27:

Making that choice in some cases results in automatic imposition of that penalty, while for others, it is imposed after a trial or other means.

If you rebel and cause scandal and harm, you have removed yourself from the Church.

Greg27:

I have tried my best, but in the end the church’s laws felt imprisoning rather than liberating, and the various penalties for questioning and dissent felt like a judge waiting to catch me in the act and throw me out of the church at the first opportunity.

Where else has this shown up in people’s lives? Where else have folks wrongfully equated authority with destructive power?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

I don’t know why you persist in using labels like “liberalism.”

It has been my experience, Vern, without a single exception, that folks who introduce the term ‘liberal Catholics’ into a ‘discussion’ inevitably arrive at where they really want to be – and that is a position of labelling some folks ‘regressive Catholics’ or other less polite terms. The term ‘regressive Catholics’ is often delivered with the nose in the air, the eyelids lowered, and an attitude of ‘a nod’s as good as a wink.’ This kind of labelling seems to me to be unreasonable, arbitrary, vague, changeable, divisive, and uncharitable. But wodduino?

 

[Greg27]

This discussion has become extremely nasty and unpleasant for me, so I will not be making any further comments here on the issues earlier discussed.