Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[St_Francis]

Are you justifying the death penalty as a ‘prudential’ position of the US?

The point I was attempting to make is, the diversity of how that is interpreted by Catholics.

As to your first point, what I mean is that the Church sets parameters in certain areas of moral theology, and the government is to act within those parameters, using the prudential judgement of the people in the government. So, the Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong under certain circumstances. It is up to the people in charge to decide how those circumstances align with their own situation. What is at issue inmdiscussions about the DP is the application to a certain set of circumstances, notably for us in the US, is it the case that we can protect others from harm from certian people? Do prison guards and other prisoners deserve protection from stone cold killers? How do we handle these situations–do we keep some people isolated in prison cells and all tied up onto a handcart like Hannibal Lector and hope he never escapes, or do we maintain the DP for people like that?

And how does the issue of meting out a just punishment work out? Is giviing justice where none is asked for or merited a good idea? Etc.

So what I’m trying to do here is to show the interplay between a government and Church teachings. The Church does not tell us how to punish, just how not to. I am doing this because I had the impression that you wanted the Church to recommend a precise system.

think we’ll disagree here, because of understanding. I mean, does the Pope fill the primacy of Peter, or not? If we have different diocese that are not unified, there is a problem in my opinion. Isn’t that how Protestantism started?

I’m not exactly sure of the particulars of how Church governance works with regards to Pope-bishop relations, so it’s hard for me tosay more, except for the purely practical aspect that if a bishop were to ignore what the Pope told him to do (and we do not know what the popes have told various bishops in private), what recourse does the Pope have? Sometimes it is better to tolerate an evil than to start something which could cuase even more serious and long-lasting problems.

Go out and preach the Gospel to ALL nations. There’s only one Gospel and one Church in my opinion.

Agreed. However, it seemed to me that you were saying that the Gospel included precise instructions for one form of government…

…That’s your opinion. I am not comfortable, as a layperson, making a decision who belongs and who doesn’t. That’s for the authoritative men of the Church and we, as laypersons, should follow.

I myself would not say that this or that particular person should leave, in fact, current discilpline is that the obligations of Catholics are still binding on those who have been excommunicated. And I believe that laypeople have a right and a duty to inform the bishop of problematical laypeople or religious, and I think that it is not unreasonable to expect the hierarchy to maintain some form of discipline in conjunction with ensuring that Catholics are catechized. The hierarchy are supposed to be shepherds, and they are supposed to direct us and protect us from wolves.

As for legislating morality, I’m not so sure about that. Christ didn’t do it and neither did the Apostles. Of course the Muslims are trying it out, we could see how it works for them?

Christ had a mission, and the Apostles had a mission. Neither had the mission of running governments. However, Catholic laypeople should be involved in this aspect of their society as every other, and should bring Catholic teaching with them.

By this I do not mean that a Catholic should try to legislate Mass attendance in the US, but that, say, a Catholic could not willy-nilly legislate the abolition of unions.

Most major laws are legislation of morality. It is morally wrong to steal, and we have laws against stealing. Legislating this morality doesn’t seem to have harmed oir nation any, has it?

Not every moral tenet needs to be or even should be enshrined in law, and not every law refers to morality (like which side of the road we drive on). However, insofar as a law does touch upon morality, the natural law should be adhered to as closely as possible. We should not have laws mandating theft, but we do not need to have laws forbidding artificial birth control IF that would cause social disorder.

As to Moslem law or Shariah, their violation of natural law renders it wrong at best.

Some of the issues we are discussing are quite tricky, esp when you are just learning about them as I have been. There are subtleties that we do not find in oir everyday political discourse, and a lot of aspects to digest.

One of the best ways I find to learn these things is through discussions like ours, so I thank you for being involved

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

I refute abortion
I refuse to wear a seatbelt while motorcyclists arent required to wear helmets
I refute the fact an 18 year old can kill for his govt but when he returns all shellshocked he is denied a drink cuz he isnt 21

I refute MANY laws and would have no problem breaking them if I had to

Yes, and such refutation can land you in legal trouble. If you are willing to suffer the consequences, then by all means pursue your concscience. Similarly, if you dissent in the Church on matters of infallible teaching, expect consequences appropriate to the level of your dissent.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Liberal Catholics are not necessarily dissidents at all. In fact, many "Liberals are really very conservative, wanting to get the Church back to its ORIGINAL practices, and stop all of the stuff that was added on between the 8th and 15th centuries.

If nothing changed in the church, and its liturgies, we would not have church buildings at all, we would meet for Mass at each others homes. Priests would not be full-time clergy, they would have a “day job” and be Priests (or Bishops) in addition to whatever they did in order to support their families.

There would be no “temples” at all (meaning huge, and hugely expensive churches), the Church would essentially be a home based religion.

Virtually ALL clergy would be married, just as Jesus himself chose only married men to be his apostles.

Clergy would be just another member of the community, not regarded as some kind of a “demi-God”, who has to be kowtowed to and treated as something ultra special. They would have one voice in the running of the local church, but only one voice and that voice would carry no more weight than any other, except in matters of direct faith and morals…

So, what you might consider to be very liberal positions, are, in actuality, very CONSERVATIVE positions.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why ANYONE, regardless of being either liberal or conservative, should be even thought of as someone to leave the church. Who are you, or anyone else, to sit in judgment of others?

 

[chaunceygardner]

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.

It is interesting that you are referring to people “who attend Mass weekly”. Perhaps they stay because they ARE Catholic and it is their church too. The church constantly talks about evangelizing and bringing the searchers, the fence sitters and the spiritually lost into the church. In our area, the diocese runs radio ads with the Bishop inviting people to come to Sunday Mass especially around Easter and Christmas. Yet others want to push out people who come to church every week! Very strange.

I wonder how you would differentiate between those who are fully in accord with the Church and those who are not? Have them complete a short test? Some would not be able to complete the quiz because they would not understand what was being asked. Would those who complete the test and get a good grade be welcome to come to Mass and to sit up front, those who barely pass directed to the musty choir loft or the RCIA room, and those who fail sent away?

Plus, if we made being “fully in accord” with ALL the doctrines of the Church as the criteria for who could stay and who should leave, there would then be few “true” Catholics in church (especially when some who advocate for this also advocate following doctrines from 500, 1000 or 1500 years ago rather than current church doctrine–which doctrines should “true” Catholics follow?)

I think you have identified something that most don’t want to admit: That there are huge differences amongst Mass attending Catholics in general, a wide range of “types”. Some come to church because they base their faith on following tightly prescribed ritual, rubrics and doctrines, and for them the Church and the Mass provide that secure assurance of “belonging”. Others come to the church for help and guidance in seeking and developing a relationship with God, and see the Gospel of Jesus and the community of the faithful (The Church) as the way to get there.

When I meditate on what Jesus said and did, I have the strong feeling that he would be warmly greeting and welcoming the latter as they came into Church for Mass; just as Jesus did with the Centurions, the lepers, the tax collectors, the Samaritans, the sinners and the outcasts who came to him. God, and also hopefully the Church, does not call out just to the perfect, but primarily to those who are most in need of His loving embrace and abundant grace.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As to your first point, what I mean is that the Church sets parameters in certain areas of moral theology, and the government is to act within those parameters, using the prudential judgement of the people in the government. So, the Church teaches that the death penalty is wrong under certain circumstances. It is up to the people in charge to decide how those circumstances align with their own situation. What is at issue inmdiscussions about the DP is the application to a certain set of circumstances, notably for us in the US, is it the case that we can protect others from harm from certian people? Do prison guards and other prisoners deserve protection from stone cold killers? How do we handle these situations–do we keep some people isolated in prison cells and all tied up onto a handcart like Hannibal Lector and hope he never escapes, or do we maintain the DP for people like that?

And how does the issue of meting out a just punishment work out? Is giviing justice where none is asked for or merited a good idea? Etc.

So what I’m trying to do here is to show the interplay between a government and Church teachings. The Church does not tell us how to punish, just how not to. I am doing this because I had the impression that you wanted the Church to recommend a precise system.

I’m not going into detail on the specific subject of the death penalty, as it was used as an example and not an attempt to derail the thread.

How it is handled, or legislated, is determined by Catholics. How it is supported or rejected is taught by the authoritative men of the Church and I view recent writings as there are practically no excuses for exercising that practice anymore.

If you disagree, I do not deny you as Catholic, or any less a Catholic than myself or those who agree with me. The problem lies in our interpretation of Church documents. For this item we need clarification so we know who is correct, on this issue or similar issues.

I’m not exactly sure of the particulars of how Church governance works with regards to Pope-bishop relations, so it’s hard for me tosay more, except for the purely practical aspect that if a bishop were to ignore what the Pope told him to do (and we do not know what the popes have told various bishops in private), what recourse does the Pope have? Sometimes it is better to tolerate an evil than to start something which could cuase even more serious and long-lasting problems.

Agreed. However, it seemed to me that you were saying that the Gospel included precise instructions for one form of government…

The Gospel includes precise instructions for His ‘government’, or more correctly referred to as His Kingdom. He chose and appointed men over His Church. They are our prelates. We have problems when our prelates present different views and the one who holds the keys does not clarify for all to understand which is correct.

By this I do not mean that a Catholic should try to legislate Mass attendance in the US, but that, say, a Catholic could not willy-nilly legislate the abolition of unions.

Most major laws are legislation of morality. It is morally wrong to steal, and we have laws against stealing. Legislating this morality doesn’t seem to have harmed oir nation any, has it?

The key word in your statement is ‘Most’. Again, as Catholics, we have to fully understand what is right and what is wrong. God gave us free will, but it appears some think we should force morality which seems to take away the free will given by God.

In the same respect a Catholic cannot ‘willy-nilly’ legislate, we can only make a choice who represents us and that doesn’t always work out, or so it seems. Then I feel we have to pray His will be done and trust that He is answering our prayers according to His will.

 

[St_Francis]

I think maybe overall we are having trouble with the term liberal Catholic.

To me, a liberal Catholic is someone who treats the Church like the US: a democracy, but one in which the “votes” of some would be considered meanspirited and thus thrown out. So to me, a liberal Catholic is someone who disagrees with one or more important teaching of the Church and who wants to Church to change Her teaching in that matter.

Like The women who go out and ger themselves “ordained.” Looking at what they do and what they say, at least some of them are trying to get the Church to change in this matter. They stay in the Church and spread their errors.

Unlike the US, the Church is not a democracy. The Church is an institution which teaches what Christ taught the Apostles, the truths which God has revealed. These things are not up for discussion. It’s not like whether or not to lower the drinking age or raise the speed limit; it’s like discussing whether the moon is made of green cheese.

So, to me a liberal Catholic is someone who is an enemy of the Truth which God teaches, and is therefore liable to discipline in accordance with his or her actions. I do not think that someone who merely holds politically liberal ideas is therefore a liberal Catholic, and I do not think that people who are sincerely working through issues are liberal Catholics.

In fact, the philosophixal foundations of what I consider liberal Catholicism are antithetical to the Faith, and they are actually already a different religion: they have different beliefs and priorities. And because of the damage they do to souls, something should be done. As a layperson, all I can really do is to correct the misconceptions which they have spread, but others in positions of authority can do other things.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Like The women who go out and ger themselves “ordained.” Looking at what they do and what they say, at least some of them are trying to get the Church to change in this matter. They stay in the Church and spread their errors.

If I’m not mistaken, that is a subject that has been clearly spoke about by the authoritative men of the Church. By ‘clearly spoke about’, I don’t believe that will ever, or could ever, change without placing the Church in the position of being in error.

As we discuss the term ‘liberal’ it strikes me that even that term is subject to understanding between Catholics. There are those who cast the term upon those who disagree with them on politics, and normally without a speck of understanding the opposing view.

Unlike the US, the Church is not a democracy. The Church is an institution which teaches what Christ taught the Apostles, the truths which God has revealed. These things are not up for discussion. It’s not like whether or not to lower the drinking age or raise the speed limit; it’s like discussing whether the moon is made of green cheese.

So, to me a liberal Catholic is someone who is an enemy of the Truth which God teaches, and is therefore liable to discipline in accordance with his or her actions. I do not think that someone who merely holds politically liberal ideas is therefore a liberal Catholic, and I do not think that people who are sincerely working through issues are liberal Catholics.

In fact, the philosophixal foundations of what I consider liberal Catholicism are antithetical to the Faith, and they are actually already a different religion: they have different beliefs and priorities. And because of the damage they do to souls, something should be done. As a layperson, all I can really do is to correct the misconceptions which they have spread, but others in positions of authority can do other things.

We pretty much agree here. We have dogma and we have teachings. Sometimes those teachings are not clear and left up to some room for interpretation, or even disagreement. It’s not as cut and dry and some try to make it sound. One example is the way one makes a decision on how they will vote in an election. Some say, no matter what you cannot vote for ‘whoever’, or no matter what you must vote for ‘whoever’. If it were a ‘no matter what situation’, then I, and I imagine many other Catholics, need that ‘no matter what’ clearly spelled out for us by a unified voice of Church leaders, or the one leader that sits in Peter’s seat.

 

[St_Francis]

If I’m not mistaken, that is a subject that has been clearly spoke about by the authoritative men of the Church. By ‘clearly spoke about’, I don’t believe that will ever, or could ever, change without placing the Church in the position of being in error.

Exactly, and because these people are going against the teachings of the Church, I do believe something needs to be done, because it hurts others in the Church who are led astray.

As we discuss the term ‘liberal’ it strikes me that even that term is subject to understanding between Catholics. There are those who cast the term upon those who disagree with them on politics, and normally without a speck of understanding the opposing view.

This is very true, and shows the necessity of defining terms and making sure everyone is talking about the same idea.

We pretty much agree here. We have dogma and we have teachings. Sometimes those teachings are not clear and left up to some room for interpretation, or even disagreement. It’s not as cut and dry and some try to make it sound. One example is the way one makes a decision on how they will vote in an election. Some say, no matter what you cannot vote for ‘whoever’, or no matter what you must vote for ‘whoever’. If it were a ‘no matter what situation’, then I, and I imagine many other Catholics, need that ‘no matter what’ clearly spelled out for us by a unified voice of Church leaders, or the one leader that sits in Peter’s seat.

Well, I don’t think it would be a good idea for the Pope to tell us who to vote for. Unfortunately, the Pope wrote a very good letter to the American bishops aboit voting for pro-abortion politicians, but for some reason, the head of the USCCB did not share it with the other bishops.

As to who to vote for, we have all of Church teaching to help us. And we need to consider our vote in light of what the candidate is saying, and what he has done, and why he did it. For example, Bush was criticized for not commuting the DP while governor of Texas. But in Tx the governor cannot do that, unlike many other states. So we havee to consider what he did, and why he did it. If we really feel strongly about voting for someone who is against the DP, we might then look to see if he ever did anything else about it and what he says about it now.

And I think sometimes when we vote, each “evil” might be too bad to vote for. During the primaries last time, I knew that if Giuliani were the Republican nominee that I would not be able to vote for him, and I never thought the Democrats would nominate someone for whom I could vote. So I think sometimes we have a candidate can fully support, or the lesser of two evils, or no option.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, I don’t think it would be a good idea for the Pope to tell us who to vote for. Unfortunately, the Pope wrote a very good letter to the American bishops aboit voting for pro-abortion politicians, but for some reason, the head of the USCCB did not share it with the other bishops.

While it might not be a good idea for the Pope to tell us who to vote for, it would be nice to hear exactly why that instruction isn’t given. Without having a specific candidate named, or hearing why, we have to assume it’s because we are not in a position of ‘must’, one way or the other. It seems to support the argument that the Church instructs us to form a faith based conscience and apply that to our decision.

I spent a considerable amount of time researching Church documents prior to the last presidential election. I failed to see instructions limiting Catholics to a single issue. In fact, I saw many issues specifically explained for consideration.

I also saw people who persistently pushed a single issue also endorse other issues that did not appear to be in line with the teachings of Christ, in my honest opinion.

You mentioned the ‘lesser of two evils’. That is a dangerous business when we know the history of the great deceiver. Also consider the reality of some politicians being deceitful just to maintain a bloc of voters.

These are the type decisions that must be worked out for ourselves and through a well formed faith based conscience. And, no one should use any excessive measures to sway people to go against their conscience.

Trust in God and pray for His will to be done, then trust He answered the prayers. We should all understand the answer is not always going to be ‘yes’ according to what we think it should be, and know that He grew many faiths as they weighed the decisions. Prior to, and afterward, stand as one as we should. Do not alienate that which is His because of things of this world.

Remember, Pilate had no authority over Christ except that which was given him by the Father…and the Father’s will was accomplished.

 

[St_Francis]

While it might not be a good idea for the Pope to tell us who to vote for, it would be nice to hear exactly why that instruction isn’t given. Without having a specific candidate named, or hearing why, we have to assume it’s because we are not in a position of ‘must’, one way or the other. It seems to support the argument that the Church instructs us to form a faith based conscience and apply that to our decision.

Unfortunately, I don’t know how to explain why the Pope doesn’t tell us.

Ispent a considerable amount of time researching Church documents prior to the last presidential election. I failed to see instructions limiting Catholics to a single issue. In fact, I saw many issues specifically explained for consideration.

It was a difficult situation. A lot of people were torn.

also saw people who persistently pushed a single issue also endorse other issues that did not appear to be in line with the teachings of Christ, in my honest opinion.

Yes, I think that all many of could was to do our best in a difficult siuation.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

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?

Part of it is that liberals don’t believe that heresey even exists, or that what the Pope says is infallible. They also don’t believe in excommunication, and they don’t believe that doctrine is important. So they see no problem with being a member of a Church even though their opinions are different from the church’s doctrines and the pope’s teachings.

 

[meltzerboy]

Liberal Catholics are not necessarily dissidents at all. In fact, many "Liberals are really very conservative, wanting to get the Church back to its ORIGINAL practices, and stop all of the stuff that was added on between the 8th and 15th centuries.

If nothing changed in the church, and its liturgies, we would not have church buildings at all, we would meet for Mass at each others homes. Priests would not be full-time clergy, they would have a “day job” and be Priests (or Bishops) in addition to whatever they did in order to support their families.

There would be no “temples” at all (meaning huge, and hugely expensive churches), the Church would essentially be a home based religion.

Virtually ALL clergy would be married, just as Jesus himself chose only married men to be his apostles.

Clergy would be just another member of the community, not regarded as some kind of a “demi-God”, who has to be kowtowed to and treated as something ultra special. They would have one voice in the running of the local church, but only one voice and that voice would carry no more weight than any other, except in matters of direct faith and morals…

So, what you might consider to be very liberal positions, are, in actuality, very CONSERVATIVE positions.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why ANYONE, regardless of being either liberal or conservative, should be even thought of as someone to leave the church. Who are you, or anyone else, to sit in judgment of others?

Interesting information about the early Church. And, even though we have different faiths, I agree with you in spirit and principle. Guidance and instruction is one thing, but NO ONE should sit in judgment of another: that’s not OUR business!

 

[exoflare]

For example, the Catholic Church is the only one with the Trinity

Well that’s just plain incorrect, but where did you even get that idea?

 

[foundmyfaith]

Part of it is that liberals don’t believe that heresey even exists, or that what the Pope says is infallible. They also don’t believe in excommunication, and they don’t believe that doctrine is important. So they see no problem with being a member of a Church even though their opinions are different from the church’s doctrines and the pope’s teachings.

That is a pretty broad generalization. I believe in all of those things. I don’t agree with a few things, but I know the Pope is infallible and I pray that my wrong thinking will be changed.

I am not sure why this forum is always trying to suggest that people leave the Church.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

That is a pretty broad generalization. I believe in all of those things. I don’t agree with a few things, but I know the Pope is infallible and I pray that my wrong thinking will be changed.

I am not sure why this forum is always trying to suggest that people leave the Church.

That is pretty much why I stayed out of this conversation until now. It is bound to be a series of statements which do not follow one another. The term liberal has been abused far past meaning. Unless a person clearly defines how they are using the term, it is impossible to argue. Liberal=Heretic? Liberal=democrat? Liberal=someone who disagrees with the Church? Liberal=someone who disagrees with me? Liberal=someone who favors reform/progress?

Is the Church an unchanging, ever-constant, rock or is it a constantly evolving, progressive and responsive body, rooted in Truth? Can it be both?

I generally consider myself to be a liberal. I long ago learned that if I identify as a liberal Catholic, people do not hear “a Catholic who is liberal” unless they are similar. They hear “a Catholic who does not believe that the Church is infallible.” That is how they define the term. If that is the definition, I am not a liberal Catholic. By most reckonings, however, I am.

 

[chuckfrmvalyfrg]

Just so I understand you Elizabeth, and where we differ… My take on the history of slavery and Christianity, is that Christianity introduced the idea of treating slaves fairly and justly, but that slavery was not morally wrong, per se. At least, that is how I read the bible, and that is how I understand the Church’s moral teaching for at least 1800 years. As a result of that moral teaching, certainly, some “masters” decided to free their slaves. People like Jefferson condemned slavery, but were unable to part with his hundreds of slaves. There was a turning point which occurred in the 18-19th century in Western Culture, and in the Church which changed that view. While Pope Gregory I accepted a slave as a gift, and rather than liberating that slave, in turn gave the slave as a gift to a bishop, I think it is fair to say that the Church did not oppose slavery at that time. Yet, today, if I understand the Church’s teachings today, then owning a human being is a grave moral offense. Am I missing something here?

Peepers , I did a little homework for both you and me . At this website 's "FAITH " tab (catholic.com ), enter slavery in the search box . One of the first entries should be for This Rock ( a magazine ) , July/August 1999 issue . The article is , "Let My People Go , The Catholic Church and Slavery " , by Mark Brumley . It reminded me of things I had forgotten and/or did not understand well , it is a good article and on point . Let me know if it helped you . Thanks .

 

[Tsuwano]

A liberal Catholic is not the same thing as a dissident Catholic any more than is a conservative Catholic. A dissident Catholic may be either liberal or conservative, or indeed, middle of the road. In fact, we are all dissident Catholics in that all of us are sinners and none of us fully live out our faith as we should. In addition, I would say that liberal Catholics stay in the Church because it is their Church as much as it is yours. Why do you stay in the Church? I imagine the reasons are similar.

 

[Robintrinket]

There is absolutely no reason on earth why ANYONE, regardless of being either liberal or conservative, should be even thought of as someone to leave the church. Who are you, or anyone else, to sit in judgment of others?

All this thread is basically asking is why people who do not seem to believe or practice what the Catholic Church teaches still choose to belong to it. It is not asking them to leave or even saying that they should leave. How is asking a question about why someone does something “judging” them?

The Church does have a right to excommunicate as a discipline if someone does something seriously wrong. This shows the seriousness of the error and that the Church definitely does not agree with it. It keeps people from being led astray by the error, and may help the excommunicated person realize the seriousness of it and repent. As I said before, though, this thread is not suggesting mass excommunication of everyone who is Catholic but does not believe and practice the Catholic Faith.

 

[Robintrinket]

Unless a person clearly defines how they are using the term, it is impossible to argue. Liberal=Heretic? Liberal=democrat? Liberal=someone who disagrees with the Church? Liberal=someone who disagrees with me? Liberal=someone who favors reform/progress?

When I hear the word liberal, what I think of is belief in abortion, same-sex marriage, expansion of government, and more socialistic economic policy. I also think of a push for replacing traditional values with the modern values of the world. I think what the original poster meant by “liberal” in this thread is Catholics who do not believe and practice the Church’s teachings on morality and instead choose the values of the modern world.

 

[Robintrinket]

I long ago learned that if I identify as a liberal Catholic, people do not hear “a Catholic who is liberal” unless they are similar. They hear “a Catholic who does not believe that the Church is infallible.” That is how they define the term.

If a Catholic does not believe in the Church’s teachings on abortion, marriage, etc., and thinks that they can or should be changed, they obviously do not believe these teachings are infallible.