Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[Greg27]

Your decision. But I must say that I agree with you that labelling folks is nasty and unpleasant and that that is why I believe that using terms such as ‘liberal Catholics’ or ‘regressive Catholics’ does little to build bridges. One more time: there is no such thing as a liberal Catholic or a regressive Catholic – only a Catholic.

On this point I will agree.

I consulted with a priest here about the issues raised in this thread, and he has answered them in such a way without condemning me or wavering from what I understand to be the church’s magesterium. I pretty much consider the case closed.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

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

2 to 4 are Catholic doctrine - although 3 needs to be very carefully defined so that there is no misunderstanding, it is in one of its forms Catholic teaching. AFAICS, 5 is not per se incompatible with being Catholic; it is not on a par with 1.​

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

for 4, see 5 above.​

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.

How can one possibly leave ? It is a sin to do so - which is why I for one find it so odd to see calls & demands & encouragements for “liberals” to “leave the Church”. IMO, this sort of thing betrays a very strange conception of the Church; it isn’t a club - it’s a Body. And the hand does not say to the fingers, “You are very sick indeed, & I want nothing to do with you”. IMHO, it is a huge sin for Catholics encourage anyone to leave - they are encouraging “liberals” to add to the sins they are accused of. The problem with such encouragements is that they imply despair of the conversion of others - & that is not good at all. It’s too easy - & “liberals” could with perfect fairness say the same to their critics: result - mutual denunciation, & farewell to charity, mercy, pity, longsuffering, & grace. I can’t remember that Christ turned anyone away - so how can we ? ​

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.

I assumed you were a Catholic - my apologies to you All the same, I think that my comments can stand, as they don’t imply anything about you. Using severity is too easy, ISTM - it does not require one to be Christlike. So I don’t trust it; it is too close to the behaviour of unregenerate man. Love is far harder - but it is what Christ commands, requires, & what He showed. Severities such as killing dissidents are too much of a short cut around the Cross, therefore, not allowed.​

BTW, thanks for trying to define liberalism - this is only the second time I’ve seen anyone go to the trouble of doing so; it’s a great help, because otherwise the word is flung aroiund in a meaningless & useless way; which helps no one.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Exactly!

If we’re going to weed out based on worthiness (as defined by whom?) the churches will all be empty. I know I can’t stand up to any worthiness criterion. I’m one of those struggling sinners Jesus said he came to eat with.

Which is why all this battering of “liberals” by “conservatives” (& vice versa) is so daft.​

Besides, people are often “liberal” on some issues, & “conservative” on others. “If I have all wisdom…know all mysteries…give my body to be burned, and have not charity, I am nothing” - as usual, St. Paul’s words hit the mark.

 

[estesbob]

This is really what it comes down to: the Church says we must do X and must not do Y and we don’t want to do X and do want to do Y. To some extent we all experience this and there are only two choices: do what we think is right or do what the Church says is right.

The belief that our conscience alone allows us to decide in our favor against the Church is a misunderstanding of what the conscience is and what its limits are. Beyond this, however, is the failure to recognize the full implication of rejecting what the Church teaches, for when we reject a major teaching we also reject the claims the Church makes about herself. (Dei Verbum 10): *"*the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." You cannot believe this claim if you believe the Church has misinterpreted the word of God in a significant way, but once you reject this claim you reject the Church’s authority to correctly interpret anything.

(Fides et ratio 7): *"*The knowledge which the Church offers to man has its origin not in any speculation of her own, however sublime, but in the word of God which she has received in faith." Again, if you reject what the Church teaches you cannot believe she has received the word of God but that she is making up morality as she goes along - that her morality is man made and not from God.

What is the appeal of being in a Church whose moral laws cannot be trusted either to be right or to endure beyond the tenure of the latest occupant of the Vatican?

Ender

Well said-I always look at it this way-if the Church is wrong about contraception, abortion et al how do we know they arent wrong about the resurection?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well said-I always look at it this way-if the Church is wrong about contraception, abortion et al how do we know they arent wrong about the resurection?

I don’t think it’s about doctrine – witness the statement that “if the Pope told me to buy Coke instead of Pepsi, I wouldn’t.” Look at all the clearly wrong statements about the Church.

And notice how reluctant they are to discuss the real issues. Almost all the complaints are in broad generalities – very little specific.

I think we are seeing people in rebellion against themselves. Their anger comes from within, and is directed inward – it isn’t the Church at all, it’s their own lives that inspire this frustration and anger.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Greg27:

I consulted with a priest here about the issues raised in this thread, and he has answered them in such a way without condemning me

Could you please point me to the language which condemned you. Thank you.

Also just wondering, since this is supposed to be a discussion, whether you would consider including your priest in the discussion either directly or by quoting or paraphrasing what he said – or refraining from appealing to an ‘authority’ who is inaccessible to the rest of us. Thank you.

Greg27:

or wavering from what I understand to be the church’s magesterium.

Could you please point me to the language which wavered from what you understand to be the Church’s Magisterium. Thank you.

Greg27:

I pretty much consider the case closed.

Is this the bridge-building kind of closure? Or the other kind?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

## How can one possibly leave ? It is a sin to do so - which is why I for one find it so odd to see calls & demands & encouragements for “liberals” to “leave the Church”.

Again, I object to the use of the term ‘liberals’ when describing some Catholics. Catholics are Catholics.

If folks feel that they need to prefix their Catholicism in order to describe their rebellion against Magisterial teaching, then they are equivocating. Rebellion against Magisterial teaching means that the folks in rebellion have already left the Church; they are no longer in community with the Church; they may no longer receive the Sacraments.

What the Catholics remaining in the Church object to is folks who claim to be Catholics when in fact they are not. Why? Because this sort of misrepresentation adversely affects the vulnerable both inside and outside the Church.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

## Which is why all this battering of “liberals” by “conservatives” (& vice versa) is so daft.

Most of the battering I have experienced is by folks who resort to these labels in the first place. As I have said before: Catholics are Catholics.
Gottle of Geer:

Besides, people are often “liberal” on some issues, & “conservative” on others. “If I have all wisdom…know all mysteries…give my body to be burned, and have not charity, I am nothing” - as usual, St. Paul’s words hit the mark.

Do you believe prefixing Catholicism to be charitable? If not, then why do you cling to the notion that the prefixing of Catholicism has a place in discussions of Catholic theology?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

vern humphrey:

I don’t think it’s about doctrine

Neither do I. If it were about doctrine then people would be content to discuss solutions to problems and answers to questions without generalizing, equivocating, going off on red herrings, building strawmen, abandonning lines of inquiry arbitrarily, and taking and making things personal.
vern humphrey:

– witness the statement that “if the Pope told me to buy Coke instead of Pepsi, I wouldn’t.” Look at all the clearly wrong statements about the Church.

But some folks don’t care about wrong statements.
vern humphrey:

And notice how reluctant they are to discuss the real issues.

Which, if Luther is any example, are exclusively personal and have nothing to do with the Church.
vern humphrey:

Almost all the complaints are in broad generalities – very little specific.

Making it difficult at times to even understand what is being said if anything is being said at all. Some of it seems to be on the level of ‘a nod’s as good as a wink.’
vern humphrey:

I think we are seeing people in rebellion against themselves. Their anger comes from within, and is directed inward – it isn’t the Church at all, it’s their own lives that inspire this frustration and anger.

I agree. But why do they put themselves in the path of the Church? Specifically, what outcome do they want from the Church?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Neither do I. If it were about doctrine then people would be content to discuss solutions to problems and answers to questions without generalizing, equivocating, going off on red herrings, building strawmen, abandonning lines of inquiry arbitrarily, and taking and making things personal.

But that isn’t happening – no one of those who feel like others are pushing them out of the Church is willing to say what their difference is with the Church.

Which, if Luther is any example, are exclusively personal and have nothing to do with the Church.

Right down to the phoney ink stain on the wall.

Making it difficult at times to even understand what is being said if anything is being said at all. Some of it seems to be on the level of ‘a nod’s as good as a wink.’

Nothing enrages a person who hates so much as being asked for a rational justification for his hatred.

I agree. But why do they put themselves in the path of the Church? Specifically, what outcome do they want from the Church?

I don’t know – but I do know this; if the Church gave them everything they asked for, they’d still be fighting their internal demons.

 

[sosayi1960]

I could get very specific. I love aspects of the church. I strongly disagree with absolute obedience. Many people believe that anything the Pope says or does is Gospel truth. Why are you belittling me? Could it be I’m more progressive? I’m not a traditionalist. Somehow I’m a heretic. Oh well, that’s for God to decide.I just don’t understand why everything is so black and white. What does one do with shades of gray? I pray that someday the Holy Spirit can unify all of Christendom. It would take God to do that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I could get very specific. I love aspects of the church. I strongly disagree with absolute obedience.

Give us a concrete example of this “absolute obedience” to which you object.

Many people believe that anything the Pope says or does is Gospel truth.

I don’t know how many people believe that – but I assure you Benedict XVI does not believe that.

Why are you belittling me? Could it be I’m more progressive? I’m not a traditionalist. Somehow I’m a heretic.

Who belittled you? Who called you a heretic?

Oh well, that’s for God to decide.I just don’t understand why everything is so black and white. What does one do with shades of gray?

Can you give us some examples of things that are “black and white” when they should be “shades of gray?”

I pray that someday the Holy Spirit can unify all of Christendom. It would take God to do that.

We might be able to help, if you would tell us your specific problems.

 

[burnside]

People who find themselves disagreeing with major doctrine of their chosen political party usually leave and either start a different party or join another party closer to their views.Shouldn’t catholics who disagree with the Church on major issues do the same thing?
That is what i would do.However,i would pray first and allow for the fact that the clergy were the people with the degree in Theology and i didn’t.When i was at school,we would offer opinions to our teachers,but we acknowledged that the teacher was the one with the university degree in that particular subject.Mind you,i have worked with a couple of ex-teachers and it was suggested that,when students start at university,the compulsory subject should be a course in common sense.I remember someone describing himself as from a humble background.What he meant was he came from a relatively poor background and managed to achieve a fair measure of success in his life.Briefly,he shattered my belief that humility was about not being arrogant in your views but,at the same time,not allowing so-called lack of confidence to let you shirk something you are well capable of doing,even though with difficulty.
The problem is that there is not enough humility around.I know of
people who leave the Church,but not after a lengthy spell of Prayer and Study led them to the conclusion that the Church was wrong.Simply it was easier to stay in bed on a wet Sunday morning.

 

[anamchara]

Liberals keep the warm fires burning for guest and possible converts and this drives the conservatives crazy as they are constantly putting out the fire.

 

[Julianna]

:clapping: :clapping:

Liberals keep the warm fires burning for guest and possible converts and this drives the conservatives crazy as they are constantly putting out the fire.

 

[estesbob]

Liberals keep the warm fires burning for guest and possible converts and this drives the conservatives crazy as they are constantly putting out the fire.

It has been my experience that those who profess to be Liberal Catholics are trying to set fire to the Church so it will burn down and they can rebuild it in their own image and likesness.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Liberals keep the warm fires burning for guest and possible converts and this drives the conservatives crazy as they are constantly putting out the fire.

Tell me about these warm fires. Give us some specifics.

 

[anamchara]

It has been my experience that those who profess to be Liberal Catholics are trying to set fire to the Church so it will burn down and they can rebuild it in their own image and likesness.

naww we get how a fireplace works, hearth, wood, chimney etc…conservatives see only the stone and the hardness and believes it tells them that they must always be uncomfortable and so the kneel upon the cold stone and throw water on the fire and say “the Church is not about being nice”!

 

[estesbob]

Tell me about these warm fires. Give us some specifics.

Perhaps they are cofusing hell fires with warm fires?

 

[anamchara]

Tell me about these warm fires. Give us some specifics.

And there is the problem with conservatives they can only deal with the literal, they do not recognize the truth found in symbols and metaphorical language.