Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[Brendan]

mikew262:

While, I may disagree with the church’s stance on priests getting married, I don’t deny it’s authority to enforce the ban.

FYI, the acceptance of men who are already married is a matter of discipline that the Church has the power to allow or disallow as She sees fit.

The allowance of a currently ordained, actively ministering priest into the Sacrament of Matrimony is a matter of the Sacraments that the Church has no power to change.

When one is talking about a married priesthood, the matter in which that comes about is critical.

 

[Nohome]

mikew262:

Do you claim another denomination now?

No, I have the same difficulty with other denominations as I do with the RCC. Hence my name “nohome”

Nohome

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Canon law prohibits Catholics from joining organizations that work against the Church.

Canon Law states:

Can. 1374 A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to be punished with a just penalty; however, a person who promotes or directs an association of this kind is to be punished with an interdict."

Here’s what the latest Democratic Party platform states…

We will defend the dignity of all Americans against those who would undermine it. Because we believe in the privacy and equality of women, we stand proudly for a woman’s right to choose, consistent with Roe v. Wade, and regardless of her ability to pay. We stand firmly against Republican efforts to undermine that right. … Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

Explicit in their platform is that they also stand firmly against Catholic efforts. So, here’s a thought… does the Democratic Party plot against the Church in the canonical sense of canon 1374? If so, doesn’t canon 1374 apply to the Democratic Party even more clearly than it does to the Freemasons?

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think so, Dave. You would need to consult a Canon Law expert, but I believe the party would have to be more like the No Nothings. They were directly working against the Church. I don’t believe having a platform with views that differ would suffice.

itsjustdave1988:

Canon law prohibits Catholics from joining organizations that work against the Church.

Canon Law states:

Here’s what the latest Democratic Party platform states…

Explicit in their platform is that they also stand firmly against Catholic efforts. So, here’s a thought… does the Democratic Party plot against the Church in the canonical sense of canon 1374? If so, doesn’t canon 1374 apply to the Democratic Party even more clearly than it does to the Freemasons?

 

[Jaypeeto4]

When they disagree with Church teaching on dogma, on faith, and on morals, they are not “liberal.” The correct term is
“heretics.”

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

 

[DreadVandal]

I would say that if one is firm in one’s convictions in rejecting an article of Catholic faith, then one should leave the Church. That is what a person of integrity would do. If one is just doubting or hesistating (wavering perhaps) then that is another story. Having difficulties with Church teaching is one thing. Defiantly rejecting Church teachings is another.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Brain:

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

Brain:

I assume you mean Catholic ex-liberals, or they need to change their definition of liberal to exclude dissenting from Church Teaching on Faith and Morals.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

patg:

No, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t say that women couldn’t be priests either. I’m not trying to start a discussion of that topic *again *so let’s just use it as a generic example. If the magestrium can’t reasonably explain something to reasonably educated people, then the practice of “we’ll just force you to believe it” is a little hard to take.

Patg:

I’ve found that whether or not one can accept the explanations given by the Magisterium of the Church or not is often determined by whether or not one believes that Jesus Christ was physically raised from the dead on the third day and whether or not that’s the central fact of one’s faith.

Those who believe that Jesus Christ was physically raised from the dead and who’ve made that the central fact of their faith don’t usually have a lot of difficulties accepting the doctines of the Church once they’re explained to them. And, Those difficulties they do have usually can be resolved by prayer and research, and sometimes by submission to the Authority of the Church.

On the other hand, those who don’t believe that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead, or who haven’t made it central to their faith, usually aren’t going to be able to accept the teachings of the Church, no matter how well these are explained.

You know the next question - Do you believe that Jesus Christ was physically raised from the dead? Has that fact become the central fact to your faith?

If the answer to both questions is “Yes”, I suggest you get a copy of the Catechism and read it along with the foonotes and whatever materials are referenced. You’ll find most of your questions answered with explanations.

If the answer to either is “No”, I suggest that you pray that God reveal the truth of the Resurrection and why that’s the Central Fact of our Faith.

In Christ, Michael

 

[fix]

mikew262:

Cmon Fix, do really think the vast majority of Catholics are in total agreement with every teaching and doctrine that is out there? If so, IMO, you are dreaming. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I can only guess. I think many, perhaps a majority, do not accept the authority of the Pope.

In a perfect world, every Catholic would be in total agreement with all Catholic Doctrine and Teachings. This is certainly what the goal should be, but it’s not a perfect world. Even clerics within our own Church have voiced disagreement.

I agree. That does not mean those who reject that authority are correct. It means they are in error. How morally culpable they are before God I cannot say. I do think that we each have a serious obligation to learn the faith and form our consciences accordingly. Too often I hear folks say they prayed about such and such and they choose to reject the teachings of the Church on matters of faith and morals and these teachings are from Christ.

All a Catholic can do, is do their best in believing and adhering to the Church’s doctrine and teachings. If they in good conscience can’t adhere to something then they have to reconcile this with God through confession or in their own personal relationship with God.

We have an obligation to form our consciences correctly.

2039 … At the same time the conscience of each person should avoid confining itself to individualistic considerations in its moral judgments of the person’s own acts. As far as possible conscience should take account of the good of all, as expressed in the moral law, natural and revealed, and consequently in the law of the Church and in the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium on moral questions. Personal conscience and reason should not be set in opposition to the moral law or the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Fitz]

patg:

No, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t say that women couldn’t be priests either. I’m not trying to start a discussion of that topic *again *so let’s just use it as a generic example. If the magestrium can’t reasonably explain something to reasonably educated people, then the practice of “we’ll just force you to believe it” is a little hard to take.

I think that those that don’t understand have not availed themselves to the explanations. I wondered for years about the priesthood question, but then started listening to Catholic radio. Once I heard many different people over time explain this, I came to understand that if we were to change in the Catholic church on the issues of abortion and priesthood for instance, then we would really become Protestant. So, if you can’t accept the authority of the Pope, the answer is Protestantism. It is really that simple.

 

[fix]

Penny Plain:

I think the burden of proving a claim of authority rests on the person or institution that is making the claim. Would you agree to that, at least?

Yes, and the Church has proven that claim and those that submit to Her authority have reasoned that claim. Those that reject that authority should state their reasons other than claiming things like it just does not seem reasonable or other such things because it appears they are operating by emotion alone?

 

[mike182d]

patg:

No, but I’m pretty sure he didn’t say that women couldn’t be priests either.

If you want to get technical, Jesus never mentioned the office of the priesthood at all. He established Apostles (Bishops) but the office of presbyter - “priest” being the English abbreviation of the Greek word - was formed by the Apostles as the pastoral faculties are different then that of a Bishop.

It would probably interest you to know that there used to be female Deacons in the early Church. Deacons were “pastors” of various Churches and the priest would travel from Church to Church celebrating Mass. Deacons were able to administer *some *of the Sacraments but not all. Only the priest could administer the Eucharist. This shouldn’t be much of a surprise as this is still true today. The Church teaches that in a time of grave necessity, even *I *could baptize someone but I would never be able to consecrate a host. So, why the difference? The Eucharist. To understand why *only *men can be priests is to understand the nature of the Eucharist and that the priest stands in persona Christi, or rather in the person of Christ.

For example, think of the Eucharist. We can *only *use bread and wine because Jesus says that His flesh is true food, His blood is true drink, and at the Last Supper that the bread and wine are His true body and blood. We can’t use hotdog buns, donuts, French bread, etc. because all of those would fail to fullfill the command of our Lord. Only unleavened bread can be used because Jesus established that His presence is in the form of unleavened bread. The same goes for the priesthood.

Jesus *chose *to establish His presence in the form of a man. You cannot say that it was because of “social pressures” because there was not a single thing Jesus did out of fear of social norms. Furthermore, this was not arbitrary as God does *nothing *arbitrarily. God was trying to reveal something very specific about His nature by making Himself incarnate in the form of a man and, just like only unleavened bread can only be used for the Eucharist, only a man can stand in *persona Christi *and capture the full essence of Christ’s presence on earth.

To disagree with the Church’s teaching on this you have to believe several things:

1. Human sexuality is arbitrary and men are not different than women.
2. God does things arbitrarily without any significant meaning.
3. God will conform Himself to social norms of the day, regardless of how unjust they are.

All of these are in *complete *contradiction with Divine Revelation and the nature of God and cannot be believed if one wishes to call themself a Catholic.

 

[buffalo]

mike182d:

If you want to get technical, Jesus never mentioned the office of the priesthood at all.

Were you there?

 

[mike182d]

buffalo:

Were you there?

Nope.

 

[setter]

DreadVandal:

I would say that if one is firm in one’s convictions in rejecting an article of Catholic faith, then one should leave the Church. That is what a person of integrity would do. If one is just doubting or hesistating (wavering perhaps) then that is another story. Having difficulties with Church teaching is one thing. Defiantly rejecting Church teachings is another.

I second this post that integrity and basic honesty would demand silence or departure from affiliation with the Church visible until public defiance or willful assent could be received as a grace from God.

 

[mikew262]

Brendan:

The allowance of a currently ordained, actively ministering priest into the Sacrament of Matrimony is a matter of the Sacraments that the Church has no power to change.

I could be wrong, but I’m not sure this is correct. While the church may choose not to change this rule, I think they do have the authority to change it, if they wish. I remember seeing this on another thread awhile back.

 

[mikew262]

Jaypeeto4:

When they disagree with Church teaching on dogma, on faith, and on morals, they are not “liberal.” The correct term is
“heretics.”

Jaypeeto4 (aka Jaypeeto3)

Incorrect. See my earlier post (#80). Denial is the key term, not disagreement.

 

[Isidore_AK]

Every time I read a thread like this (even my own posts!) I think:

Dilbert.com

dilbert.com

Look, you don’t have to AGREE with everything, just ACCEPT IT. Believe that the Church knows best, and be a good little Catholic. Don’t dissent. Don’t try to Change the Church. Just accept it as the Lord intended it to be. If you can’t do that, then get out. Now. Please? I’m begging here!

1…2…3…Accept it! Or go! Whatever.

Just leave the rest of us alone, and don’t claim to be Catholic while spreading your dissent. Out! Out!

 

[patg]

Isidore_AK:

Look, you don’t have to AGREE with everything, just ACCEPT IT.

Sure, and what good would that do? For thousands of years people have accepted endless things that were found to be not quite correct - what good did that do for the world?

Believe that the Church knows best, and be a good little Catholic.

Why must that be a “belief” and not something you can reasonably convince me to do? And, by the way, I’m not asking you to do this - I am quite seriously pursuing it all.

Don’t dissent. Don’t try to Change the Church. Just accept it as the Lord intended it to be.

I do accept what the Lord intended. I just have a lot of trouble accepting what people have done with it.

If you can’t do that, then get out. Now. Please? I’m begging here!

Why? And why is it any of your business? It’s all between me and God anyway.

1…2…3…Accept it! Or go! Whatever.

Is that what you do when you don’t like something your political, business, or club leaders do? I can see you take the commandment to go and make disciples of all nations rather lightly.

Just leave the rest of us alone

That is one of my primary goals. After all, I didn’t start this topic and you don’t have to read it.

and don’t claim to be Catholic while spreading your dissent. Out! Out!

I’m really glad Jesus didn’t preach with your attitude. But then it also would have made everyone’s choices much easier.

 

[buffalo]

patg:

Sure, and what good would that do? For thousands of years people have accepted endless things that were found to be not quite correct - what good did that do for the world?

.

They might be in heaven. That’s pretty good.