What is Progressive Catholicism?

[Abu]

The Old Medic
Being “progressive” does NOT mean that a person does not accept the Magisterium of the Church.

It is fatuous to describe Catholicism in such terms. The Church does not express itself in meaningless terms, and the thread title refers to a state of belief which has no meaning except to express a move away from Her. It is meaningless to describe Catholics in such terms, even if some commentators use them, as Catholics are either faithful or unfaithful to Christ and His Church.

Catholics may be politically or socially conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, laborites, or whatever titles a given nation may use for its political parties.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

this is a strange thread, people who call themselves progressive are claimed to be outside the church…

Describing yourself as “progressive” is not sufficient to sever full communion with the Church. It takes obstinate denial or doubt of magisterial teachings before that can happen, which is true of any Catholic, “progressive” or otherwise.

According to Cardinal Ratzinger, when still prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith:

"Whoever obstinately places them doctrines set forth infallibly, de fide credenda] in doubt or denies them falls under the censure of heresy, as indicated by the respective canons of the Codes of Canon Law…

Whoever denies these truths doctrines set forth infallibly, de fide tenenda] would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church… [e.g. priestly ordination is reserved only to men]

A proposition contrary to these doctrines sententia certa of the ordinary Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff or of the College of Bishops] can be qualified as erroneous or, in the case of teachings of the prudential order, as rash or dangerous and therefore ‘tuto doceri non potest’ [unable to be safely taught].

(Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Doctrinal Commentary on *Professio Fidei, *29 June 1998, promulgated with *Ad tuendam fidem *by John Paul II)

A breach of full communion occurs when denying de fide teachings of the magisterium. A violation of canon law (grave matter, punishable under canon 1371) may occur when denying “certain teachings” (sententia certa) of the magisterium. Each place a barrier to reception of Holy Eucharist, but the phrase “outside the church” is normally reserved only to those Catholics who deny de fide teachings.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

While the term “progressive Catholic” may be a divisive label, it is indeed a term used by some Catholics to describe themselves. Because of this, theologians such as Cardinal Ratzinger have also used this term.

For instance, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote:

[Vatican II] for a long time it has been regarded by the so-called progressive wing as completely surpassed, and consequently, as a thing of the past, no longer relevant to the present… it must be stated that Vatican II is upheld by the same authority as Vatican I and the Council of Trent, namely the Pope and the College of Bishops in communion with him…*** It is impossible*** (‘for a Catholic’) to take a position for Vatican II, but against Trent or Vatican I. Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous council. And that also applies to the so-called ‘progressivism’, at least in its extreme forms." [Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, *The Ratzinger Report,

pg. 28]

 

[txjeff874]

I’ll hopefully by God’s Grace receiving confirmation for Advent this year. (My parish does it twice a year.)

But, being a neophyte to the Church… anything that suggests being outside of the Magisterium really is problematic for me.

“Progressive” Catholic just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I think about it. But, I am glad to get the answers of people who have been in the Church far longer than I have though.

 

[Abu]

txjeff874
“Progressive” Catholic just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I think about it.

Well expressed, and public opposition to the Magisterium is dissent!

The “so-called” progressives description used by Cardinal Ratzinger in which he includes “traditionalism” shows that any such self-styled adjectives denote a challenge to fidelity of belief on which he elaborates, and when public opposition to the Magisterium results, this state is one of dissent, which is condemned by Pope John Paul II:
“It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a ‘good Catholic’ and poses no obstacle to the reception of the sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching office of the bishops of the United States and elsewhere.” [Meeting with US Bishops at Our Lady Queen of Angels Minor Seminary, Los Angeles, Sept 16, 1987].

“The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent. In fact this freedom does not indicate at all freedom with regard to the truth but signifies the free self-determination of the person in conformity with his moral obligation to accept the truth.” Donum Veritatis, (Instruction On The Ecclesial Vocation Of The Theologian) CDF, 1990, 36].

 

[Padraig1972]

I’ll hopefully by God’s Grace receiving confirmation for Advent this year. (My parish does it twice a year.)

But, being a neophyte to the Church… anything that suggests being outside of the Magisterium really is problematic for me.

“Progressive” Catholic just leaves a bad taste in my mouth when I think about it. But, I am glad to get the answers of people who have been in the Church far longer than I have though.

I got a person in my own family that is like that. My cousin. He converted on the same day as me and call himself " a happy-catholic". Pro-choice, for female priests, for masturbation and so on.

I respect that he has his own opinions sure, but i totally disagree with him.
The whole thing gives me a bad taste too.

 

[haroldcrews]

Terms such as ‘progressive’ and even ‘conservative’ are rather meaningless outside of a context. A Catholic who becomes ever more humble, obedient and devout is certainly progressing towards God. A Catholic who progresses in heresy is regressing away from God.

But the term ‘progressive’ has positive connotations in the West and is therefore useful in making one feel good about oneself and implicitly condemns those with whom you do not identify. It is by and large a term of manipulation.

 

[Tsuwano]

Terms such as ‘progressive’ and even ‘conservative’ are rather meaningless outside of a context. A Catholic who becomes ever more humble, obedient and devout is certainly progressing towards God. A Catholic who progresses in heresy is regressing away from God.

But the term ‘progressive’ has positive connotations in the West and is therefore useful in making one feel good about oneself and implicitly condemns those with whom you do not identify. It is by and large a term of manipulation.

Good post. Labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” or even “orthodox” are more often used as weapons and shields when used in Catholic Answer Forums. They describe nothing, but are used to deflate another person’s thoughts, not through reason, but through a perjorative association. As you said, they are used to manipulate argument, not enlighten it.

 

[qOcOp]

I recently read a book by Mary Gordon. She identified herself as a progressive Catholic.

I have looked around on the web for a suitable definition but it only comes up with a Traditionalist Catholic that denies Vatican II. I don’t believe Ms. Gordon is a traditionalist, because she said she attends mass, but what would you say that “progressive” means in this context?

Thanks for any information you might have.

Everytime i have heard a catholic call themselves “progressive” it has always been in defense of their lifestyle which is not in conformity with all the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Another adjective commonly used by Catholics doing this to describe themselves is “enlightened.”

 

[Tsuwano]

Everytime i have heard a catholic call themselves “progressive” it has always been in defense of their lifestyle which is not in conformity with all the doctrines of the Catholic Faith. Another adjective commonly used by Catholics doing this to describe themselves is “enlightened.”

Well, let me add to your experience then. My lifestyle is in conformity with all the doctrines of the Catholic faith and I think I am a progressive Catholic. I also like to think of myself as enlightened, but I’m never 100% sure on this point.

 

[Abu]

Tsuwano
Labels such as “progressive” or “conservative” or even “orthodox” are more often used as weapons and shields when used in Catholic Answer Forums. They describe nothing, but are used to deflate another person’s thoughts, not through reason, but through a perjorative association. As you said, they are used to manipulate argument, not enlighten it……I think I am a progressive Catholic.

This seems contradictory.
Why do you call yourself a “progressive Catholic”?

 

[Tsuwano]

This seems contradictory.
Why do you call yourself a “progressive Catholic”?

It is contradictory, and was meant to be. In point of fact I don’t call myself a “progressive Catholic.” I’m a Roman Catholic. I was responding to a poster who claimed that in his experience anyone who described himself as “progressive” did so only to defend a lifestyle not in conformity with the doctrines of the faith. I wished to point out how absurd and limiting these labels are in describing reality. I could just as easily say that anyone who describes themselves as a “conservative Catholic” does so merely to bring back an Imperial papacy and because they are insecure in the modern Church. This may indeed be my personal experience of “conservative Catholics,” but I certainly don’t believe this describes the full reality of the matter. Labels never describe very much reality. They, more often than not, give a clearer picture of the person using the label than the object he is seeking to label.

 

[Abu]

Thanks Tsuwano.

Post #21: Catholics may be politically or socially conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, laborites, or whatever titles a given nation may use for its political parties.

Catholics are none of these as to faith and morals – they are either faithful or unfaithful.

 

[Tsuwano]

Thanks Tsuwano.

Post #21: Catholics may be politically or socially conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, laborites, or whatever titles a given nation may use for its political parties.

Catholics are none of these as to faith and morals – they are either faithful or unfaithful.

That’s right! I agree.