Should liberals leave the catholic church?

[trustmc]

mikew262:

I agree to an extent. I think they love the Church as much as the next Catholic, but for one reason or another they feel the church is going in the wrong direction on certain issues. Thus, they feel the need to try to correct it.

Unfortunately, the liberals are deluded when they think the Church is going in the wrong direction as if she somehow veered off on some different path. The Church has been going in the same direction for the past 2000 years: She had never and never will ordain women, has never and never will allow abortion, has never and never will approve of homosexuality, and has never and never will allow for a democratic structure. It’s the liberals who have gone off in a different direction from that of the Church. There is no matter of faith or morals that is in need of correction. They are just too foolish to realize that.

Mike

 

[vern_humphrey]

trustmc:

Unfortunately, the liberals are deluded when they think the Church is going in the wrong direction as if she somehow veered off on some different path. The Church has been going in the same direction for the past 2000 years: She had never and never will ordain women, has never and never will allow abortion, has never and never will approve of homosexuality, and has never and never will allow for a democratic structure. It’s the liberals who have gone off in a different direction from that of the Church. There is no matter of faith or morals that is in need of correction. They are just too foolish to realize that.

Mike

That, of course, is the key point. The Chuch did not “go wrong.” The Church’s position is constant over two thousand years.

Those who seek to change it, seek therefore to destroy it.

 

[mikew262]

YES!!! If they can’t obey the teachings of the Church then they should leave if you ask me!

Thank God that isn’t the prevailing opinion of the Church.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mikew262:

Thank God that isn’t the prevailing opinion of the Church.

Yeah, I think you’d be out, Mike.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mikew262:

Thank God that isn’t the prevailing opinion of the Church.

What does “prevaliling opinion of the Church” mean?

The Church is not run by consensus or prevailing opinion. The doctine of the Church is that those who do not accept the Magisterium, those who withhold the Assent of Faith, have excommunicated themselves, by their own act.

Now the rest of us should pray that they are given the grace to return, and to accept the teachings of the Church – but that doesn’t change the fact that those who reject the teachings put themselves outside the Church.

 

[JSmitty2005]

vern humphrey:

The doctine of the Church is that those who do not accept the Magisterium, those who withhold the Assent of Faith, have excommunicated themselves, by their own act.

I’m sure Mike already knows this, but just to be sure, it’s specifically called latae sententiae excommunication.

 

[mikew262]

JSmitty2005:

Yeah, I think you’d be out, Mike.

I’m not worried about it.

 

[JSmitty2005]

mikew262:

I’m not worried about it.

just trying to throw some humor in to mix it up a little from our typical jousts

 

[Kristopher]

Orionthehunter:

I’m sorry I used the analogy of the death penalty to make a point in this thread. I’d rather hear your comments to the thrust of my post rather than commenting on the tangential.

I didn’t have much else to say, about the thrust of your post: it was important to be clear about what the Cat. of the Cath. Church (CCC) says about capital punishment for the sake of discussion–it was another relevant point.

 

[Kristopher]

The Cat. of the Cath. Church (CCC) and the New American Bible are clear that the Bible is not to be taken literally for every word in it–some of the work in it is strictly fiction, but such use of fiction is useful to illustrate a truth, much in the same way literary devices such as the allegorical meaning, or metaphorical meaning of passages in the Bible exist: hardly anything, which could be construed from the words literally themselves for example, Noah’s Flood exists as a symbolic foreshadowing of baptism, the old world being shed for the new world. The same is true of it, with respect to the Sacrament of Reconciliation–confession allows us to shed the old man, and to put on the new man. These are not literal, but symbolic and therefore, figurative meanings in the Bible.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

No one has ever said the Church is founded upon obedience. The Church was founded upon Peter by Christ.

Christ taught the Apostles and commissioned them to teach us all. Who rejects the teaching of the Apostles and their successors rejects the teaching of Christ.

Nor did I say it was.​

What I said say, was “If one sees [it] as founded upon obedience” - it is an important element in Christian ethics: and many responses to Catholics by other Catholics are based, implicitly or explicitly, upon an appeal to it.

My point is that there have been times - in the centuries before Vatican II, for instance: especially after the 1830s or so - when it tended to be given a disproportionate importance, as though obedience could be a cure for all difficulties in the life of the Church; especially intellectual or pastoral ones. As it is not in itself peculiar to Christian ethics, it can’t have the dominant position which, it is, sometimes, implied, it has. Obedience is not enough on its own - it is morally good only if it is for a good end in, a good manner. ##

 

[vern_humphrey]

## Nor did I say it was.

What I said say, was “If one sees [it] as founded upon obedience” - it is an important element in Christian ethics: and many responses to Catholics by other Catholics are based, implicitly or explicitly, upon an appeal to it.

My point is that there have been times - in the centuries before Vatican II, for instance: especially after the 1830s or so - when it tended to be given a disproportionate importance, as though obedience could be a cure for all difficulties in the life of the Church; especially intellectual or pastoral ones. As it is not in itself peculiar to Christian ethics, it can’t have the dominant position which, it is, sometimes, implied, it has. Obedience is not enough on its own - it is morally good only if it is for a good end in, a good manner. ##

I think there’s a lot of baggage in that position – seeing the Church as founded upon obedience.

First of all, man has free will. Yet God does command. Those who choose to obey his commands sin.

Next, God did commission the Apostles to teach, and the Church does carry out that commission. What the Church teaches as de fide, we are obliged to accept.

Third, those things taught as de fede are few – most doctrinal disputes are issues where one can take either side (evolution is an example.)

Wherever I see people calling the Church “authoritarian” or claiming it “demands obedience” I see people who have serious conflicts within their personal value systems. It might not go too far to say the suffer from cognitive dissonance. They want to be Catholic, but also want to argue with the basic morality of the Church.

To such people I can only say, “Pray for the grace to accept the teaching of the Church.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

trustmc:

Unfortunately, the liberals are deluded when they think the Church is going in the wrong direction as if she somehow veered off on some different path. The Church has been going in the same direction for the past 2000 years: She had never and never will ordain women, has never and never will allow abortion, has never and never will approve of homosexuality, and has never and never will allow for a democratic structure. It’s the liberals who have gone off in a different direction from that of the Church. There is no matter of faith or morals that is in need of correction. They are just too foolish to realize that.

Mike

1. Please define “liberals” - one person’s understanding of what a liberal is, may not be another person’s.​

1. Asserting things is not proof the assertion is true. It’s up to those who say “liberals” are “deluded” to support their statements.

Two hundred years ago, the theologically-interested opponents of democratic regimes might have said the very same thing - one of the challenges for the Papacy in the 19th century was the fact that the pre-democratic political structures with which it had grown used to dealing during the preceding fifteen centuries, had undergone a transformation which took a great deal of power out of the hands of the monarchs and put it in the hands of the people, at least in principle.

The dealings of the Papacy and the USA are especially interesting - the Papacy frequently condemned the separation of Church & State; yet the USA’s Constitution includes this separation as a basic principle. And far from being hamstrung or suffocated as a result, the CC in the USA has done very well for itself.

The “liberals” can hardly be said to have “left the Church” - they are in it.

ISTM that “liberalism”, and “conservatism”, like so many words, are relative terms: Newman was suspected of being a “liberal” in certain quarters for much of his life as a Catholic - by some standards, both in in his own time and since, he would be reckoned as vigorously “anti-liberal”; today he would probably count in certain respects as very “conservative”.

It’s not enough to say, “X is liberal” - one has to ask oneself, “liberal in what respect ?”; and “If X was thought to be liberal in the past about topic Y, would the liberalism of X be regarded as liberal now, or in the same respect ?”

“Liberalism” (like “conservatism”) is not a single changeless quality with a single meaning valid for all societies - because what it means in practice, depends upon its social environment. “Atheism” is also relative, for the same reasons - what it means in a particular society, depends on that society’s understanding of theism; which is why the first Christians in the Roman Empire were accused of “atheism” - they had a different notion of God from their Gentile neighbours: neither they nor their neighbours were atheists in the usual modern sense.

Which is probably why there is a lot of “traditionalist” talk about so-called “neo-conservatives” - the “neo-conservatives” are so described because they are considered not to be conservative enough, the true “conservatives”, in the opinion of many “traditionalists” being the “traditionalists” themselves; which suggests that the “neo-conservatives” (AKA “faithful Catholics” - as they sometimes reckon themselves) are regarded as “liberals”; along with those the “neo-conservatives” or “faithful Catholics” describe as “liberals”

So the labelling is a relative matter. Until those who are equipped to do so - the bishops; not the laity - do so, ISTM that we should stop unChurching one another, and be content to call ourselves and others Catholic Christians.

Or is the Church a democracy after all, so that those laity who wish to cast out their fellows are entitled to act as bishops if the bishops, in their opinion, do not so act ?

If those who say “the Church is not a democracy” mean what they say, they should stop trying to anticipate or replace their duly selected shepherds by taking on themselves duties which do not belong to them. We are all free to criticise one another, but not to be the self-constituted judges and juries of one another. ##

 

[vern_humphrey]

## 1. Please define “liberals” - one person’s understanding of what a liberal is, may not be another person’s.

One thing I notice here is self-labeling. We wouldn’t have an argument if some of us didn’t self-label ourselves.
Gottle of Geer:

Or is the Church a democracy after all, so that those laity who wish to cast out their fellows are entitled to act as bishops if the bishops, in their opinion, do not so act ?

If those who say “the Church is not a democracy” mean what they say, they should stop trying to anticipate or replace their duly selected shepherds by taking on themselves duties which do not belong to them. We are all free to criticise one another, but not to be the self-constituted judges and juries of one another. ##

The Church is neither a democracy nor an autocracy – nor anything in between. It is God’s Church, commissioned by Him to teach His message.

Now we of the laity **can **learn. We can find and quote Church doctrine for those who are in doubt. And we can point out – even while praying for them – that those who reject the Magisterium have separated themselves from the Church.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

I think there’s a lot of baggage in that position – seeing the Church as founded upon obedience.

First of all, man has free will. Yet God does command. Those who choose to obey his commands sin.

I think that was meant to read “disobey His commands…”​

That is often not the issue - what He commands, and how we are to know, and whether the Church is credible, are the questions I am familiar with.

All I’m doing is describe a position which has in fact been held. It should be clear that it’s not mine, since obedience can be obedience without being related to God at all; as I pointed out. That’s why “Nuremberg obedience” is not authentically Christian, and is instead a perverted type of obedience.

None of this in any respect calls in doubt either authentically Christian obedience or the need for it . The Model for it, is Jesus Christ, Whose perfect obedience to His Father in Heaven is identical with His limitless self-sacrificing Love of His Father and of men. To say our obedience to God must be unreserved, is to say that our love of God must be unreserved - which is why the Torah calls for that very kind of love of God in Deuteronomy 6.

The problem comes when, in our relations with our fellows, love and obedience are divorced in theory or practice; for this makes the substitution of obedience for love possible - the identity of the two is not obvious, because none of us is Jesus Christ. So there is a real danger of obedience being distorted and, in practice if not in theory, set above the theological virtues rather than below them. And that error can be aggravated by an inadequate appreciation of the “mystery” of the Church - especially if the dominating model of the Church at such a time is a military one. Which is one of the reasons that we need to see the Church both as a visible body, and as a mysterious actuality. ##

Next, God did commission the Apostles to teach, and the Church does carry out that commission. What the Church teaches as de fide, we are obliged to accept.

Third, those things taught as de fede are few – most doctrinal disputes are issues where one can take either side (evolution is an example.)

The practical difficulty is that while that is so, saying that is a good way to win accusations of all sorts of unpleasant kinds.​

Wherever I see people calling the Church “authoritarian” or claiming it “demands obedience” I see people who have serious conflicts within their personal value systems. It might not go too far to say the suffer from cognitive dissonance. They want to be Catholic, but also want to argue with the basic morality of the Church.

Except that it does claim the latter, or has; and is entirely capable of being the former - examples of authoritarianism can be found in Geoffrey Hull’s book, “The Banished Heart”. Might I recommend a reading of Cardinal Manning and Louis Veuillot as well ? Not to mention the “Exercises” of St. Ignatius Loyola - his approach in the “Rules for Thinking With the Church” is authoritarian: what matters is not whether something is black or white, but whether the Pope says it is - if he defines it as black when it is white, then it is white. I can’t see St.Thomas Aquinas sharing this outlook. The attitude to dogma which regards the appeal to history as treason and heresy (so Cardinal Manning) is a good instance of authoritarianism; as is the notion, also echoed by him, but first stated IIRC by Fenelon, that dogma could overcome history. IMHO, the Achilles’ heel of authoritarianism is that it has no appreciation for the limited nature of authority on earth, so that it extends its exercise beyond legitimate limits.​

Authority by itself is not Christian, any more than obedience is; they are liable to the same objections.

Another way of explaining the fact that people say those things, is that they notice them, and see them as things which take away from the character of the CC as a Christian body.

And, depending on the fine detail of one’s understanding of what the Church is and should be, some will take that view (which is one I agree with; just for the record) or, they will agree with your view; or with some other. It does not follow they are not “orthodox”: there is no contradiction between accepting the entirety of the Church’s teaching, and being severely critical of a great deal about the Church; just as they can be “orthodox” and not critical.

What people’s attitudes are in actuality, is a different matter. I don’t think we disagree over very much ##

To such people I can only say, “Pray for the grace to accept the teaching of the Church.”

 

[vern_humphrey]

## I think that was meant to read “disobey His commands…”

Good catch. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Gottle of Geer:

That is often not the issue - what He commands, and how we are to know, and whether the Church is credible, are the questions I am familiar with.

But those are realy non-questions. Anyone who seeks will easily find the answers.

## All I’m doing is describe a position which has in fact been held. It should be clear that it’s not mine, since obedience can be obedience without being related to God at all; as I pointed out. That’s why “Nuremberg obedience” is not authentically Christian, and is instead a perverted type of obedience.

Well . . . there is nothing God commands that would be evil if we simply followed his commands blindly.

Next, God did commission the Apostles to teach, and the Church does carry out that commission. What the Church teaches as de fide, we are obliged to accept.

Third, those things taught as de fede are few – most doctrinal disputes are issues where one can take either side (evolution is an example.)

Gottle of Geer:

The practical difficulty is that while that is so, saying that is a good way to win accusations of all sorts of unpleasant kinds.​

But I don’t see how one can not say it. After all we are commanded to be witnesses for the truth, and this is the simple truth.

If we try to avoid that, we slide into relativism.
Gottle of Geer:

Except that it does claim the latter, or has; and is entirely capable of being the former - examples of authoritarianism can be found in Geoffrey Hull’s book, “The Banished Heart”. Might I recommend a reading of Cardinal Manning and Louis Veuillot as well ? Not to mention the “Exercises” of St. Ignatius Loyola - his approach in the “Rules for Thinking With the Church” is authoritarian: what matters is not whether something is black or white, but whether the Pope says it is - if he defines it as black when it is white, then it is white.

But Ignatius Loyola was not the Church. He founded an order, into which people entered voluntarily I mention him, rather than the others because he illustrates a point.

The United States is a democracy. We place an almost unlimited value on human freedom and things like freedom of speech.

Yet in the Army one is not free. One must obey orders, report on time, and it is a military crime to speak disrespectfully of public officials.

Loyola was a soldier, and his Society of Jesus is organized along military principles (at least in part.) There is an advantage to having a disciplined, committed organization even in the freest democracy or most loving Church.
Gottle of Geer:

I can’t see St.Thomas Aquinas sharing this outlook. The attitude to dogma which regards the appeal to history as treason and heresy (so Cardinal Manning) is a good instance of authoritarianism; as is the notion, also echoed by him, but first stated IIRC by Fenelon, that dogma could overcome history. IMHO, the Achilles’ heel of authoritarianism is that it has no appreciation for the limited nature of authority on earth, so that it extends its exercise beyond legitimate limits.

Authority by itself is not Christian, any more than obedience is; they are liable to the same objections.

It depends on what one means by “authority.” Christ clearly gave the Church the power to loose and bind, on earth and in heaven.
Gottle of Geer:

Another way of explaining the fact that people say those things, is that they notice them, and see them as things which take away from the character of the CC as a Christian body.

That’s an odd way of putting it – what other Christian body is there, other than the Catholic Church?
Gottle of Geer:

And, depending on the fine detail of one’s understanding of what the Church is and should be, some will take that view (which is one I agree with; just for the record) or, they will agree with your view; or with some other. It does not follow they are not “orthodox”: there is no contradiction between accepting the entirety of the Church’s teaching, and being severely critical of a great deal about the Church; just as they can be “orthodox” and not critical.

And in fact, the Church is clear about what is settled and de fide, and what is open to debate.

Pope Benedict himself (as Cardinal Ratzinger) pointed out one can differ with the Pope on capital punishment and war, but not on abortion.
Gottle of Geer:

What people’s attitudes are in actuality, is a different matter. I don’t think we disagree over very much ##

You’re probably right.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

vern humphrey:

One thing I notice here is self-labeling. We wouldn’t have an argument if some of us didn’t self-label ourselves.

Fair enough, but that doesn’t explain what the would-be chuckers-out of “liberals” object to.​

I don’t think the labels are the real problem - ISTM they are used in order to specify attitudes perceived as guiding conduct and thinking: whether the intellectual content of the attitudes perceived has been understood, may be the problem; which is another reason for giving a definition of the words one uses ##

The Church is neither a democracy nor an autocracy – nor anything in between. It is God’s Church, commissioned by Him to teach His message.

It would be nice if that were said more often - the first part especially. IMO, it can be called a democracy and a lot of other things, though not without a lot of explanation; because those words say something that is true of the Church, but imply much that is not. It might be less misleading to say it has many democratic features, just as it has may regal features; and so on.​

Now we of the laity **can **learn.

Agreed​

We can find and quote Church doctrine for those who are in doubt.

Agreed - provided one does not treat one’s own understanding of it as irreformable, let alone insist that those who disagree are inferior to oneself as Christians or Catholics. The Church’s bishops are the interpreters of the authentic meaning of doctrines, not the laity. ##

And we can point out – even while praying for them – that those who reject the Magisterium have separated themselves from the Church.

I’d like to say “Agree” again, but ISTM that one can’t assume this; it may be so, or it may not. ISTM that membership of the Church is not a simple thing - it’s like a lasagne; it has many layers, so one is related to the Church in many ways. There are two opposite conclusions one can draw, I think: the presence of so many layers or relations means that the absence of one - doctrinal orthodoxy - does not mean one is not in the Church: or, precisely because one is lacking, all are as though they were lacking.​

I think the only way to resolve this difficulty, is to live with it. A lot of problems are resolved in this way. And I think this means living in an imperfect Church among imperfect Christians who have to live with their own and one’s own imperfections. This may be one of the reasons the Holy Spirit is in the Church and in the individual. ##

 

[sosayi1960]

I believe you are a perfect example of one who has let their Politics form their Faith. The opposite should be true-our Faith should form our Politics. How, for instance, can you say abortion is an older rule that applied to people in different times? Has the unborn become unhuman in the last few years? Or does the fact the party you support believes it is a fundamental right influence you more than the One True Church founded by Jesus Christ?

The one true Church also believed was flat. I am opposed to abortion. However, I can understand it in certain circumstances.
Is the entire party that you support pro-war? Do you believe that sperm is sacred? Why do you want to criminalze birth control?
Now, miscarriages are proposed to be criminal for women. Not all Republicans are against abortion, nor all Democrats pro-choice. How will you feed the starving people? Tax Credits?
God, the self-righteous and the evangelicals have lots of explaning to do.

 

[Dale_M]

Sosayi, is it really fair to dig up a thread which has been dead for more than a here and demand answers from the the people who posted way back then?

This is a very long thread, one that has mutated beyond the OP article (which is primarily about homosexual adoption). What caused you to reply to it now?

 

[sosayi1960]

Sosayi, is it really fair to dig up a thread which has been dead for more than a here and demand answers from the the people who posted way back then?

This is a very long thread, one that has mutated beyond the OP article (which is primarily about homosexual adoption). What caused you to reply to it now?

Sorry my fault, mea culpa