Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[Trader]

This thread is a good explanation of why I hate the labels “liberal” and “conservative”. They are thrown around with no precise agreement on what they mean, and usually not in a spirit of charity, or even honesty.

In the 1960’s I thought that James Meredith should be admitted or denied admission to the University of Mississippi based on his qualifications and not on his race. I was considered “liberal,” because I was putting the rights of the individual above the will of the majority.

Today I stil believe that everyone should be admitted to universities based on objective qualifications and not on the basis of race. Now I am called “conservative,” because I reject race-based quotas and most forms of affirmative action.

Is EQUAL PROTECTION under the law liberal or conservative?

The Church teaches that we are equal in human dignity, but for centuries church leaders ignored the evils of slavery. Were they liberal or conservative?

I believe we would all be better served by dealing with the facts in a spirit of charity and cutting way back on the use of labels. Truth is more important than winning the argument.

 

[estesbob]

dear sweet bob…I am not a liberal by any means, you should know that by now, my friend. I did not delve deeper into my beliefs as it would have thrown the thread off course. I did not say you all are the Pharisees…I was referring to the “attitude” displayed toward those who question a law, or believe that it is not realavent. Fire and brimestone and quoting more laws doesn’t always answer the question, it makes one feel even more confused.

**I like Harry Potter because I enjoy a good fantasy story…and as one who thinks for herself…I can certainly tell the difference./**quote]

Well now youve putthe cat among the pigeons!

 

[estesbob]

I have read many criticisms of the sola scripture that many evangelical Protestants follow and how out of touch they are…so begs the question…if Catholics are chaptered and versed in the Catechism…how is that any different? Both camps are literalists, with no room to question…

The Cathecism is a compilation & explanation of the consistent teachings of the Church-teachings which rest on a three legged stool-Scripture, Tradition and the Magestrium. The difference between this and sola scriptura is that those who adhere to that cut off two of the legs of the stool and leave only Scripture. They further contend that everyone gets to interpret scripture there own way. Supposedly the Spirit will guide them but as we can see just in CAF the Spirit seems to guide them in several thousand different directions. Since there can not be more than one version of the TRUTH Sola Scriptura fatally flawed’

If a person is occupied with the Catechism and raining it down on those who ask a question or dare to say…"hey, you know…I disagree with that statement"……when does a person have time to devote to the “spirit of the law”?

Fortunately since the Catechism is so well grounded when someone asks that question you can offer far more than just quote chapter and verse from the Catechism. If someone, for instance, disagree with the “Real Presence” we don’t have t go to the Catechism. We first go to Johns 6(Scripture) , then point out the Practices of the Early Church(tradition) and them go to the writing’s of the Church Fathers and Church Leadership over the years(Magestrium).

I am not sure what you mean by the Spirit of the law? I am afraid it is one of those phrases that allows one to rationalize dissenting with Church Doctrine. For instance whenever someone talks about the "Spirit o Vatican II you know immediately that :

A. it wasn’t part of Vatican II
B, it is some kind of dissent

How do you know I am not obedient? You know as much about me as I do you…which are mere words on forum in cyberspace. I do believe our Lord’s words have meaning. By their fruits you shall know them…another one of my favorites. I have read about the things that Jesus did…how could someone not be in awe of that? How could someone not follow in His footsteps with the example he has left for us?

And Jesus told us very explicitly how to follow in his footsteps. He left us his Church to guide him. We don’t have to figure things out for ourselves nor should we fall into the simplistic trap many protestant do-that loving and accepting Jesus is all that is required of us.

I am happy for you that you seek solice in the Catechism and follow it to its core. For me, it is in His words and by His actions I find comfort and answers.

No one goes to the Catechism to find solace. We go there so we may more fully understand the truth.

And how does one experience Christ words and actions? In his Church of course. You see to feel that you can separate Christs Church from Christ. You cant-they are one and the same.

Should liberals leave the Church…only if they want to.

They should never leave the Church. The just need to strive to(as all of us do regardless of how we label ourselves) make sure their beliefs do not conflict with the Church they claim allegiance to.

That does not mean that we never question the Church. What is means is that when we quesion a doctrine we must acknowledge that the Church is right and then strive to understand why the Church teaches what it does. The cathecism is a good start for this.

 

[estesbob]

The Church teaches that we are equal in human dignity, but for centuries church leaders ignored the evils of slavery. Were they liberal or conservative?

.

That is not true. Did you know,for instance, that the Pope was the First European leader to categorically condemn the Africans Slave trade? He did this in the early 1400s.

For further enlightenment on this subject i suggest you go here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

 

[Teflon93]

I think some of us might do well to reread The Book of Job.

Such arrogance!

Where is it written that the Church must conform to Man’s opinion? Do you really believe that the apostolic power to bind and loose applied to God’s Truth?

God is infinitely wiser than we are, my friends, and woe to us when we presume that our political prejudices are somehow equivalent to divine wisdom.

If you believe that the liberal political agenda, whatever it may be today, is dogmatic but the Church’s teaching is malleable, you have merely swapped the Golden Calf for something else.

I am a political conservative, but I can assure you that Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Peter Jugis, and Father Paul and Father Robert are my shepherds, not Rush Limbaugh or George W. Bush.

Those of us who propose to sit in judgment of Christ’s Church are making a grave error indeed. Leaving her would be still graver.

Adam and Eve felt their reason and wisdom to be sufficient. They were wrong, and so is anyone putting a political agenda ahead of the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Trader]

That is not true. Did you know,for instance, that the Pope was the First European leader to categorically condemn the Africans Slave trade? He did this in the early 1400s.

For further enlightenment on this subject i suggest you go here:

catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907fea2.asp

estesbob:

I certainly did not mean to say that all Church leaders were silent on slavery. In the US the Catholic record was quite good-unless you count the Dred Scot Decision of 1857, written by Roger Brooke Taney, who was a Catholic. Then again we did not even have a Catholic bishop in the US until 1790.

One of the early bishops of Mexico City did write of the terrible fate of Native Americans who were forced by Spanish conquerers to work as slaves in the Mexican silver mines. His solution was to use African slaves who he considered better suited to that hard work. I believe his name was Juan Zumaraga.

I do not pretend to judge all the actions of those who lived centuries ago, There were practical and political considerations involved, but the historical record seems to indicate that slavery was certainly tolerated more than was good for the Church.

 

[estesbob]

estesbob:

I do not pretend to judge all the actions of those who lived centuries ago, There were practical and political considerations involved, but the historical record seems to indicate that slavery was certainly tolerated more than was good for the Church.

Agreed. I think, however, that people need to realize that there is a difference between tolerating and approving of. Another factor is that slavery at the time of Christ was very different than the chattel slavery we saw later. In Roman times lower class educated men would often sale themselves into slavery as they had more upward mobility as the slave of a wealthy family. Many slaves had their own homes and families and had to give part of their income to their masters. This is the kind of slavery Paul comments on.

Having said that even though condemning it the Church was way too tolerant of chattel slavery as it developed from the 15th century on.

 

[viper78912]

The issue of leaving the Church and excommunication has been resolved by Pope Benedict XVI.In his book, “Journey Into Easter”, based on a retreat given to Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger has clarified, on page 141,”No one has the right to excommunicate.”
Earlier, Iraneaus used to believe that, if Jesus Christ is inside the Church, Satan is outside. Hence ‘excommunicate!’ However, St. Augustine excommunicated himself before his death, to experience the travails of the excommunicate.
Incidentally, in India, a Muslim film star, Salman Khan, was denied permission to become the godfather at his relative’s Baptism. The choice fell on Wendell Rodrigues, a celebrity fashion designer, who had allegedly contracted a gay marriage.
What do you think? denis

 

[johnlal]

OK, we’ll leave. But we want our money back.

 

[anamchara]

OK, we’ll leave. But we want our money back.

I haven’t seen this thread pop up in a long time, too funny john

 

[richwmiller]

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.

Promoting married priesthood in the Latin church is liberal because the rules say no.
There are exceptions to the married rule but the rule still exists.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Promoting married priesthood in the Latin church is liberal because the rules say no.
There are exceptions to the married rule but the rule still exists.

Yet the rule can still be debated as it was that way for the first 1100 years of the Church. Middle Ages property rights ended up overturning it. Yet it has been part of tradition and can easily be changed back.

 

[richwmiller]

Yet the rule can still be debated as it was that way for the first 1100 years of the Church. Middle Ages property rights ended up overturning it. Yet it has been part of tradition and can easily be changed back.

Debate away. no one is listening. IT is a liberal idea to debate it. Did you know that several oriental orthodox patriarchates are instituting celibacy for their patriarchate. So it is gaining momentum not losing it.
There are many problems associated with married clergy.

 

[rpp]

Yet the rule can still be debated as it was that way for the first 1100 years of the Church. Middle Ages property rights ended up overturning it. Yet it has been part of tradition and can easily be changed back.

Change for the sake of change is silly. There are fundamental problems with the married priesthood. We only need to look at the Anglicans and Lutherans to see the problems.

 

[richwmiller]

Professional wrestling is a sport.
.

Amen.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Debate away. no one is listening. IT is a liberal idea to debate it. Did you know that several oriental orthodox patriarchates are instituting celibacy for their patriarchate. So it is gaining momentum not losing it.
There are many problems associated with married clergy.

In the US and other countries it is easily solved with a pre-nuptial agreement that only allows the priest’s personal property in times of martial distress.

We can always debate things. It is not “liberal” or “conservative” to decide to or not to debate matters. Ideas and feelings are better when they are out in the open and worked through, not locked behind a locked door.

 

[Ahimsa]

Did you know that several oriental orthodox patriarchates are instituting celibacy for their patriarchate.

Do you mean “instituting celibacy for all of their priests”?

 

[viper78912]

There are two INDELIBLE Sacraments: Baptism and Holy Orders.
The question either of leaving the Church or the priesthood does not arise.
Celibacy was introduced in the Middle Ages because of property issues.
It should be possible to tweak the laws to allow married priests. Denis

 

[po18guy]

The author seems to think so:

full article

NO! They should rend their hearts and turn to to orthodoxy. I gave up certain (politically) conservative views, out of obedience. I should think God expects no less from the other side.

Christ’s peace.

 

[viper78912]

“Though we are faithless,
He Remains faithful,
For He cannot disown Himself.”(2 Timothy2.13).

You may forget the sea.
The Ocean will never forget you.”

God’s Love for us all is Infinite and Unconditional.
denis