Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[PRmerger]

IOthers, like Galileo, want to show that certain non-dogmatic teachings are not correct, and have little interest in practices regarding the priesthood or marriage.

If Galileo was a liberal Catholic, then Pope JPII was a liberal Catholic and Pope B16 is a liberal. Catholic.

Have you read Pope B16’s book Jesus of Nazareth, Ahimsa? There he engages in a discussion about many non-dogmatic theological issues.

 

[Ahimsa]

If Galileo was a liberal Catholic, then Pope JPII was a liberal Catholic and Pope B16 is a liberal. Catholic.

Have you read Pope B16’s book Jesus of Nazareth, Ahimsa? There he engages in a discussion about many non-dogmatic theological issues.

Finally! You are catching on! The best Catholic is a liberal Catholic, someone who continually questions non-dogmatic teachings.

 

[PRmerger]

Finally! You are catching on! The best Catholic is a liberal Catholic, someone who continually questions non-dogmatic teachings.

Well, if that’s what you mean by a liberal, then we are agreed! I am a liberal then! And I am a liberal Catholic who proclaims that the Church is RIGHT when she says that she teaches infallibly on faith and morals, and is RIGHT on artificial birth control and homosexuality and priestly celibacy and abortion and women’s ordination!

Who’d have thought?

I guess if we change the definition ad lib then we can define anyone as anything!

 

[Roy5]

Hm! I’ve read that the heliocentric teaching of Copernicus was condemned by the Church. that he didn’t publish his findings until near his death out of fear of persecution and that his writings were on the Index of forbidden books from 1650-1822. Were these ‘facts’ misinformation?
Liberal Catholics simply don't take many Church teachings that seriously. They are cultural Catholics who have family and other ties to the Church that they don't want to break. There are many things about the Church - feeding the poor and such - that they strongly endorse. As for doctrines with which they disagree, they ignore them. There are millions of Catholics who resemble mainline 'protestants' (those Protestants who feel free to believe more or less as they want within the general Christian ethoc) - millions of protestants of this sort are within the Church though they have decided not to protest!

 

[Ahimsa]

Well, if that’s what you mean by a liberal, then we are agreed! I am a liberal then! And I am a liberal Catholic who proclaims that the Church is RIGHT when she says that she teaches infallibly on faith and morals, and is RIGHT on artificial birth control and homosexuality and priestly celibacy and abortion and women’s ordination!

Who’d have thought?

I guess if we change the definition ad lib then we can define anyone as anything!

Uh…priestly celibacy is not a dogmatic teaching. A liberal Catholic would be free to question it.

 

[Ahimsa]

Hm! I’ve read that the heliocentric teaching of Copernicus was condemned by the Church. that he didn’t publish his findings until near his death out of fear of persecution and that his writings were on the Index of forbidden books from 1650-1822. Were these ‘facts’ misinformation?

Yes, some of that is misinformation. He published his findings just before his death, but not necessarily because of fear of persecution; he dedicated his book to the Pope, even. He died in 1543, but heliocentrism wasn’t officially condemned until 1616, when Galileo insisted that heliocentrism was true, and not just a useful mathematical assumption. The book was taken off the Index in 1758.
In many ways the initial cautious ambivalence of Catholic authorities is unsurprising. Copernicus was a loyal Catholic and a canon of Frauenberg Cathedral, making him a relatively minor member of the Catholic hierarchy. He had followed all of the proper procedures required to secure formal permission from Church authorities to publish his book, and he even dedicated it to the reigning Pope at the time (Paul III). That their response was ambivalent is not to say that the Church did not take the matter seriously, or fail to study it. By all accounts the Church did both. However, in the 16th century the Catholic Church found itself beset by many radical ideas, a number of which were direct and unambiguous frontal assaults upon its spiritual and political authority in Europe. So long as Copernicus’ ideas remained a mathematical argument (in Latin) among scholars and did nothing to threaten either the beliefs of the common man or the Church’s ultimate authority in such matters, the Church had no need to respond.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I recently read (can’t remember where) that the reason most dissident Catholics stay in the Church is because they realize that if they left then their influence would weaken (i.e. no one would really care what they think). I think this seems reasonable enough with respect to Catholic politicians who support abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also could apply to dissident priests. And even those people in charge of organizations like Catholics for Choice.

But my question is, what about the average layman? The man or woman who attends Mass weekly, yet his opinion on many things is not in accord with the Church. Why do these folks remain in the Church? You can’t really say that they stay for reasons of influence or power. So what is it?

Thanks.

The question should not be “Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?”

The question should be “Why are liberal Catholics allowed stay in the Church?”

 

[PRmerger]

Uh…priestly celibacy is not a dogmatic teaching. A liberal Catholic would be free to question it.

By your definition I am free to proclaim to be a liberal yet still agree that priestly celibacy is a correct discipline of the Church.

 

[Ahimsa]

By your definition I am free to proclaim to be a liberal yet still agree that priestly celibacy is a correct discipline of the Church.

Yes, you can believe that priestly celibacy is a correct discipline, but you must also continually question that belief, if you want to be a card-carrying member of the Liberal Catholic Club.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, you can believe that priestly celibacy is a correct discipline, but you must also continually question that belief, if you want to be a card-carrying member of the Liberal Catholic Club.

Well, then, as a member of the CAFs, a thinking, rational human person who uses her intellect, just as the Catholic Church commands me to do, then I am a card-carrying member of the Liberal Catholic Club,

(At least as per your rather arbitrary definition. I mean, really, I could decide to say that Ahimsa means “proclivity towards violence and homophobia” and say that Fred Phelps is a proponent of ahimsa.)

 

[St_Francis]

There are various types of “liberal” Catholics. Some want to change disciplines (such as the discipline of unmarried priests); some want to change more substantive practices (such as the practice of male-only priesthood ordination). Others, like Galileo, want to show that certain non-dogmatic teachings are not correct, and have little interest in practices regarding the priesthood or marriage.

Yes, there are various types of people who could be called liberal Catholics, This is why the definition of what sort of liberal Catholic we were talking about was important. Thus, for the purpose of answering the question originally posed, we specified about whom we were talking, eg, those liberal Catholics who disagree with fundamental Church teachings such as women priests and homosexual “marriage” so that we could discuss the question the OP wanted an answer to, as opposed to baving silly discussions about whether anyone who ever had a question about anything taught by any Catholic would be considered a liberal Catholic.

 

[Ahimsa]

Yes, there are various types of people who could be called liberal Catholics, This is why the definition of what sort of liberal Catholic we were talking about was important. Thus, for the purpose of answering the question originally posed, we specified about whom we were talking, eg, those liberal Catholics who disagree with fundamental Church teachings such as women priests and homosexual “marriage” so that we could discuss the question the OP wanted an answer to, as opposed to baving silly discussions about whether anyone who ever had a question about anything taught by any Catholic would be considered a liberal Catholic.

Given that the original poster, tomc, did not restrict his definition of “liberal” Catholic just to those who disagree with the teachings concerning an all-male priesthood or the nature of marriage, I would say that the definition of “liberal” Catholic can include many different forms of “liberalism”, and should not be unnecessarily restricted to certain forms.

 

[PRmerger]

,as opposed to baving silly discussions about whether anyone who ever had a question about anything taught by any Catholic would be considered a liberal Catholic.

Exactly.

As I stated earlier, that would make any thinking Catholic a liberal Catholic. Yet, paradoxically, he would then be an orthodox Catholic for following the Church’s command to use our intellect.

 

[St_Francis]

Given that the original poster, tomc, did not restrict his definition of “liberal” Catholic just to those who disagree with the teachings concerning an all-male priesthood or the nature of marriage, I would say that the definition of “liberal” Catholic can include many different forms of “liberalism”, and should not be unnecessarily restricted to certain forms.

Without the restriction, your proposed loose definition makes no sense. Context matters.

 

[lynnvinc]

We spent some time in the earlier part of this thread defining liberal Catholocs as those who want to somehow change Church teaching in certain areas, most notably, things like women priests and homosexual marriage.

I’m a liberal, and I’m not into the women or gay issues – tho I’m against violence against and hatred of women and gays, and I think Catholics who rant and rave against women and gays contribute to this violence and hatred.

I’m into preventing people from destroying life on planet earth. I’m against abortion, but I cannot vote for conservative candidates who would be pro-death in a huge way in their climate change denialism. I also think that killing all people on earth is NOT a felicitous way to end abortion. Furthermore, conservatives are in favor of killing people through making the poor poorer and the rich richer, and allowing the rich to kill the poor through pollution & destruction of their subsistence. That’s not nice either.

If there were candidates who were liberal on all the environmental and social justice issues, and in favor of substantially reducing abortion in ways that are not too onerous on women – like following both a “carrot” social program approach AND a “stick” legal approach, and not just imprisoning women after they’ve had their abortions, or forcing them into poverty and starvation by having their babies – then I’d be a happy camper.

That conservatives don’t care about mothers or born children, but only supposedly about the unborn (which doesn’t ring true, since they are for killing the unborn and others thru environmental and other harms), I cannot in anyway believe they are pro-life. And to me, a liberal, being pro-life is more important than being rich or having women priests or whatever else is the issue of the day.

I go along with the Church in everything, unlike conservatives, who are cafeteria Catholics, who tend to deny anthropogenic climate change and other environmental harms, or that our current global economic system is very harmful and death-causing to the poor.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m a liberal, and I’m not into the women or gay issues – tho I’m against violence against and hatred of women and gays,

Then this makes you an orthodox Catholic, not a liberal one.

and I think Catholics who rant and rave against women and gays contribute to this violence and hatred.

Catholics who “rant and rave against women and gays” are not orthodox Catholics. They are dissenting from the teaching of the Catholic church, so that actually makes them liberals.

 

[St_Francis]

Given that the original poster, tomc, did not restrict his definition of “liberal” Catholic just to those who disagree with the teachings concerning an all-male priesthood or the nature of marriage, I would say that the definition of “liberal” Catholic can include many different forms of “liberalism”, and should not be unnecessarily restricted to certain forms.

It is true that he did not clarify in his first post, but during the coirse of discussion by others of the definition, he did agree that that was what he was asking.

Basically, there would be no question about a person who is politically liberal while adhering to the teachings of the Church. The only possible definition of the phrase liberal Catholic that could be meant is the Catholic who very strenuously disagrees with basic Catholic teaching. Otherwise the question makes no sense.

And this was all pretty much hashed out early in the thread.

 

[tbcrawford]

I’m a liberal, and I’m not into the women or gay issues – tho I’m against violence against and hatred of women and gays, and I think Catholics who rant and rave against women and gays contribute to this violence and hatred.

I’m into preventing people from destroying life on planet earth. I’m against abortion, but I cannot vote for conservative candidates who would be pro-death in a huge way in their climate change denialism. I also think that killing all people on earth is NOT a felicitous way to end abortion. Furthermore, conservatives are in favor of killing people through making the poor poorer and the rich richer, and allowing the rich to kill the poor through pollution & destruction of their subsistence. That’s not nice either.

If there were candidates who were liberal on all the environmental and social justice issues, and in favor of substantially reducing abortion in ways that are not too onerous on women – like following both a “carrot” social program approach AND a “stick” legal approach, and not just imprisoning women after they’ve had their abortions, or forcing them into poverty and starvation by having their babies – then I’d be a happy camper.

That conservatives don’t care about mothers or born children, but only supposedly about the unborn (which doesn’t ring true, since they are for killing the unborn and others thru environmental and other harms), I cannot in anyway believe they are pro-life. And to me, a liberal, being pro-life is more important than being rich or having women priests or whatever else is the issue of the day.

I go along with the Church in everything, unlike conservatives, who are cafeteria Catholics, who tend to deny anthropogenic climate change and other environmental harms, or that our current global economic system is very harmful and death-causing to the poor.

 

[themeginthemoon]

I’m a liberal, and I’m not into the women or gay issues – tho I’m against violence against and hatred of women and gays, and I think Catholics who rant and rave against women and gays contribute to this violence and hatred.

I’m into preventing people from destroying life on planet earth. I’m against abortion, but I cannot vote for conservative candidates who would be pro-death in a huge way in their climate change denialism. I also think that killing all people on earth is NOT a felicitous way to end abortion. Furthermore, conservatives are in favor of killing people through making the poor poorer and the rich richer, and allowing the rich to kill the poor through pollution & destruction of their subsistence. That’s not nice either.

If there were candidates who were liberal on all the environmental and social justice issues, and in favor of substantially reducing abortion in ways that are not too onerous on women – like following both a “carrot” social program approach AND a “stick” legal approach, and not just imprisoning women after they’ve had their abortions, or forcing them into poverty and starvation by having their babies – then I’d be a happy camper.

That conservatives don’t care about mothers or born children, but only supposedly about the unborn (which doesn’t ring true, since they are for killing the unborn and others thru environmental and other harms), I cannot in anyway believe they are pro-life. And to me, a liberal, being pro-life is more important than being rich or having women priests or whatever else is the issue of the day.

I go along with the Church in everything, unlike conservatives, who are cafeteria Catholics, who tend to deny anthropogenic climate change and other environmental harms, or that our current global economic system is very harmful and death-causing to the poor.

I have to give this a big thumbs up as well, I agree with a lot of your sentiment. I am very much about social and environmental justice (the two go hand in hand, often), and I hate when people chalk this up to ‘liberal hippie BS’, because it’s not about that… it’s about taking note of the bigger picture and caring to make change.

 

[Captain_America]

I agree with much of the above as well, although I must note:

(a) the conservative theme of “individual responsibility” really DOES have some merit as a consideration when viewing social policy. It is better for have, for instance, responsible parents than to have to have government set up various kinds of oversight mechanisms and officers. It is better in two ways, first, of course, less cost; secondly, more profound, it just makes us better, more mature, more WHOLE persons if we accept the consequences of our actions.

(b) Abortion is evil. Homosexual “marriage” is wrong. Things like mandated quotas in hiring and purchasing are egregious discrimination.

(c) a great deal of our need for more and more government is driven by our love of technology. We live in a more complex world, and the old “caveat emptor” no longer works. Government ensures various standards that help such a complex world function, hence we pay more taxes for this. A simpler world just might be less taxing! But it’s the cost of doing business.