Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[arabic_catholic]

Arabic, what are your views that you consider “liberal”? My guess is you are not liberal or conservative, but Catholic; nevertheless, what views of yours make you liberal?

well … lets see

I am for the removal of priest celibacy … Ordination of women deacons … I hope the church would make more space for homosexuals in the church than just call them to celibacy (by that I don’t mean accept gay marriage or homosexual act , but to work on a way to give them more room and role to play than to just be silent about them)… I don’t believe that half, if not more ,of the old testament , is meant as a historical event rather I follow the tradition of the church of approaching the bible and modern archeological findings … I accept evolution (without the buts) , and I would like to see reforms that would make the church closer to its people rather than far away in order to be ready to bring the gospel more easily … following Vatican II , I would like to see more roles for laity in the church. in Short , more evangelical church , but not departed from its history of wisdom ; a church able to Christianize the culture like the it did in the 4th century .

its funny that all my reasons could be heard and expressed by bishops and reconciled with Vatican II , yet I see ultra conservative catholics who appear to me nothing but a fundamentalist and keep giving me that look that I crossed the red light !

 

[Wildkit]

Catechesis, plain and simple. I often see posters coming to this forum and when I see some of the questions or thoughts askew…I simply ask…

Have you read the Catechism cover to cover? A simple question that reveals so much.

I am not as smart as some of the “Liberal Catholics”, but your question is spot on. Sometimes we are so smart, but only in our own eyes!

 

[kingal86]

I’d say that cradle “cafeteria Catholics”, if that is was is meant, typically stay for cultural reasons. And, theologically - as has been pointed out - any baptised Catholic is always considered a Catholic due to the indelible mark of baptism (Dawkins recently tweeted railing against that, and seemed to break Godwin’s Law soon after).

I think the political leanings of the Catholic church are a mixture of traditional conservatism and more left-leaning economically.

I’m quite left-wing, a British republican and the Catholic church appeals to me because of it’s stand on social justice and the poor. Too many conservatives have hijacked Catholicism in the name of greed - something that the church is against.

Just FYI, from my experience on CAF, for many on this site, “liberal Catholic” - as well as implying left-of-centre views on economics (very different from what’s considered left-of-centre in Britain, and especially Scotland) is also usually taken to mean a liberal stance on moral issues, i.e. dissenting on some Catholic teachings (aka “cafeteria Catholic”), especially on sexuality (and sometimes abortion) - which in the polarised environment in the United States is often seen to follow (like night follows day) from self-identification as “liberal” or “progressive”.

The social justice aspect appeals to me too, and I’m liking the Pope’s recent emphasis on that aspect. Hope your RCIA is going well. As a republican in Scotland, I wonder what your opinion on the Union is?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Do you believe in the death penalty? If you answered “YES” … then YOU flat out disagree with the tenets and teachings of the Catholic Church

Utterly wrong. And by the way I do not favor the death penalty, both for my own reasons and because of confirming reasons by the Church, especially in the last 15+ years. However, Catholics are allowed to differ from the discouragement about the DP which has been proclaimed.

I am a liberal because I believe in the right of women to make their own choices regarding reproduction, in gender and marriage equality,

In that case,

YOU flat out disagree with the tenets and teachings of the Catholic Church.

It would be a good idea to learn your faith, particularly the core and absolute doctrines on marriage, family, gender, sexuality, reproduction, and the sanctity of life – all of which are considered at least as essential to Catholic belief as labor unions.

Many of you here may call me a ‘cafeteria Catholic’. I say to you that those who are anti-abortion …are as much of ‘cafeteria Catholics’ as you consider liberal Catholics to be.

Not even close. No institution could be as anti-abortion as the Roman Catholic Church, of which you claim to be a member.

 

[CopticChristian]

Do you believe in the death penalty?

Do you believe in in-vitro fertilization and other artificial methods of conception?

Do you believe that labor unions are an abomination and have no valid place in society?

If you answered “YES” to any of the above questions, then YOU flat out disagree with the tenets and teachings of the Catholic Church.

I am a liberal because I believe in the right of women to make their own choices regarding reproduction, in gender and marriage equality, and in all of the tenets presented in Rerum Novarum I also believe that good works are required for salvation, and tolerance of others’ beliefs and attitudes is implicit in good works and Catholic social justice.

I do not believe in the death penalty.

I do believe in the dignity of all people, regardless of their stations in life.

I am a Catholic because I believe in God, the Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; he descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty; from there he will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and life everlasting.

Many of you here may call me a ‘cafeteria Catholic’. I say to you that those who are anti-abortion and pro-death penalty are as much of ‘cafeteria Catholics’ as you consider liberal Catholics to be.

Oh, by the way, during my 17 years of Catholic education (in which I learned the theory of evolution as science), I also learned about how God gave us all free will and a conscience. He wouldn’t have done that if HE didn’t want us to use them.

Have you read the Catechism cover to cover and understand how it is organized in 4 parts?

 

[KSU]

Well, not really, CopticChristian, because such person already considers him/herself smarter than the people who wrote the Catechism. In fact, even I, an orthodox but simple and sinful man, consider myself smarter than some of the people who “contributed” to the Catechism and documents of Vatican II. (Of course, that didn’t stop the Holy Spirit from imbuing the Catechism and V II documents with inestimable value and truth.)

Moreover, have you seen some of the poor souls who actually “teach” catechesis?

No, my friend, catechesis by itself, while absolutely necessary, does not by itself prevent or cure liberalism in the Church.

 

[Brendan_64]

Back in the 4th century, Catholics around the world - including a majority of the episcopate - made their view on the Divinity of Our Lord “crystal clear”. It was called the Arian heresy.

I never knew that the majority of bishops back then supported Arianism. Is that correct? I always thought it was a minority viewpoint.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, not really, CopticChristian, because such person already considers him/herself smarter than the people who wrote the Catechism. In fact, even I, an orthodox but simple and sinful man, consider myself smarter than some of the people who “contributed” to the Catechism and documents of Vatican II. (Of course, that didn’t stop the Holy Spirit from imbuing the Catechism and V II documents with inestimable value and truth.)

 

[KSU]

"Liberalism is a disease that requires cure? "

Don’t tempt me, CopticChristian

“Disease”, maybe not; more like a serious deficiency.

 

[Brendan_64]

The teachings of the Church are the teachings if the Church.

It is not about whether or not a person is liberal. It is about staying firm with the teachings of the Church regardless of whatever on’es own personal inclinations and feelings are. This also includes the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II. It seems to me that there are a fair few within our Church who knock ‘liberals’ for not keeping to the Church’s teachings, yet they themselves seem to think it is perfectly OK to ignore, or even reject, the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

It is just as wrong to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is too ‘liberal’, as it is to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is not ‘liberal’ enough. One position is just as bad as the other.

 

[KSU]

The teachings of the Church are the teachings if the Church.

It is not about whether or not a person is liberal. It is about staying firm with the teachings of the Church regardless of whatever on’es own personal inclinations and feelings are. This also includes the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II. It seems to me that there are a fair few within our Church who knock ‘liberals’ for not keeping to the Church’s teachings, yet they themselves seem to think it is perfectly OK to ignore, or even reject, the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

It is just as wrong to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is too ‘liberal’, as it is to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is not ‘liberal’ enough. One position is just as bad as the other.

Exactly what were the new “teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”? Please quote them directly from the V II documents.

 

[Brendan_64]

Exactly what were the new “teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”? Please quote them directly from the V II documents.

Did I ever say there were any “new teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”? No I didn’t, so kindly don’t misquote me.

The Church restated certain teachings of the Church, and interpreted them for us.

I have had Catholics tell me that it is wrong for a Catholic to attend a Protestant service. No it isn’t, and to insist that this is so is to be out of line with Church teaching.

I have also had Catholics insist that non-Catholics cannot be saved because outside of the Church there is no salvation. This narrow interpretation is incorrect, and not in line with Church interpretation.

Lumen Gentium 8: “The sole Church of Christ … constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside its visible confines”.

Lumen Getium 16: “This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation”

Gaudium et Spes 22: " All this holds true not only for Christians, but for all men of good will in whose hearts grace works in an unseen way. For, since Christ died for all men, and since the ultimate vocation of man is in fact one, and divine, we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known only to God offers to every man the possibility of being associated with this paschal mystery"

I have also heard Catholics insist that Muslims worship Satan, despite what is written in Nostra Aetate 3: “The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God.”

I have also had Catholics speak with something that almost approaches contempt with regard to the Ordinary Form of the Mass.

 

[Brendan_64]

I have had Catholics tell me that it is wrong for a Catholic to attend a service in a Protestant church (even Ecumenical services, Bible study etc.). No it isn’t, and to insist that this is so is to be out of line with Church teaching.

Unitatis Redintegratio 8: “In certain circumstances, such as prayers ‘for unity’ and during ecumenical gatherings, it is allowable, indeed desirable that Catholics should join in prayer with their separated brethren”.

I have also had Catholics speak with something that almost approaches contempt with regard to the Ordinary Form of the Mass. Whether they like it or not Mass in the vernacular is the ordinary form of the Mass of the Catholic Church. To display disrespect for it is to disrespect the Church.

Catholics that do not accept particular elements of Vatican II are no different from Catholics that do not accept other elements of our Church’s teachings (including so-called ‘liberal’ Catholics) both are choosing to reject Church teachings because it doesn’t fit with their own personal interpretations of such teachings, As individual Catholics we are not at liberty to have our own interpretations of Church teachings (be that a liberal, or conservative interpretation).

 

[CopticChristian]

"Liberalism is a disease that requires cure? "

Don’t tempt me, CopticChristian

“Disease”, maybe not; more like a serious deficiency.

Deficiency in what?

 

[CopticChristian]

The teachings of the Church are the teachings if the Church.

It is not about whether or not a person is liberal. It is about staying firm with the teachings of the Church regardless of whatever on’es own personal inclinations and feelings are. This also includes the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II. It seems to me that there are a fair few within our Church who knock ‘liberals’ for not keeping to the Church’s teachings, yet they themselves seem to think it is perfectly OK to ignore, or even reject, the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

It is just as wrong to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is too ‘liberal’, as it is to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is not ‘liberal’ enough. One position is just as bad as the other.

Liberal commences with a crisis in Faith, from which all else flows…

We believe (I believe ) in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begottenSon of God, and born of the Father before all ages. (God of God ) light of light, true God of true God. Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father, by whom all things were made. Who for usmen and for our salvation came down from heaven. And was incarnate of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary and was made man ; was crucified also for us underPontius Pilate, suffered and wasburied ; and the third day rose again according to the Scriptures. And ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of the Father, and shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of whose Kingdom there shall be no end. And (I believe ) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son ), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by theProphets. And one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. We confess (I confess) one baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for (I look for) theresurrection of the dead and thelife of the world to come. Amen."

It means I believe in everything, except OHCAC, because once this belief is manifested, it guides the formation of conscience…from which thinking and speaking emanate…

 

[KSU]

Did I ever say there were any “new teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”? No I didn’t, so kindly don’t misquote me.

If you won’t acknowledge the meaning of what you said, then debate is useless. And it won’t work to simply change the subject from liberals v. orthodox Catholics to liberals v. orthodox Catholics and near SSPX-type Catholics. Deviancy comes from everywhere.

The basic question remains the same: Why do Catholics who reject some Church teaching (whether on the left or right) stay in the Church? At least the SSPX-types have the decency to leave the Church rather than stay and work in the shadows like termites to destroy the nature of the Church: Catholics for a Free Choice, Call To Action, DignityUSA et al.

 

[Holly3278]

I think they stay in the Church because they recognize that the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the Truth. When I speak of “liberal Catholics” though, I am speaking of unorthodox Catholics. I do hope and pray for their conversion to orthodox Catholicism.

 

[Brendan_64]

If you won’t acknowledge the meaning of what you said, then debate is useless.

The meaning of what I have written is exactly what I have written. Please don’t try to assume that I meant something other than what I have written. You insist on trying to misquote me and maintain that I meant that Vatican II introduced new teachings, even though I said no such thing. You are trying to get me to acknowledge a certain meaning to what I have said, even though I meant no such thing.

Vatican II explained and interpreted certain Church teachings for us and we, as Catholics are bound to accept these interpretations as set out in an Ecumenical Council. There is no wriggle room at all, we simply have to accept all of Vatican II interpretations of Church teachings. To fail to do this make one no better than ‘liberals’ who reject other Church positions to suit their own interpretations.

That is the meaning of what I have said.

If you try to misquote me in order to insist my meaning is other than what I have stated I mean, then not only is debate pointless, but you are in fact debating with things the other person hasn’t said and meanings they have never ascribed.

 

[Brendan_64]

At least the SSPX-types have the decency to leave the Church rather than stay and work in the shadows

Did they? I think you’ll find that the SSPX still maintain that they are part of the Roman Catholic Church, and that they acknowledge the Pope as head of their Church.

The SSPX did not leave the Roman Catholic Church. The bishops of the SSPX were suspended by the Church for acting in defiance of the authority of Rome. As a result the SSPX has no canonical status within the Church, and the Church regards the organisation as having committed a schismatic act. The SSPX on the other hand regards itself as very much still a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

The SSPX did not choose to “have the decency to leave”, they did no such thing. They were happy to remain within the Church and defy the authority of the Pope, and continue to condemn an Ecumenical Council of the Church. It was Rome that suspended their bishops. The SSPX did not walk away on a point of principle.

As far as the SSPX are concerned they view themselves as still being within the Roman Catholic Church and still regard the Pope as their leader, even though they attack Church teachings, defy the Pope’s authority and snipe at the Pope on a regular basis (making accusations of heresy etc.) They did not honourably walk away.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Vatican II explained and interpreted certain Church teachings for us and we, as Catholics are bound to accept these interpretations as set out in an Ecumenical Council.

…almost none of which the typical Catholic (of whatever age) recognizes (today) and understands, judging by the vast and persistent misinterpretations of the Council. New ways of communication, worship, and understanding were encouraged, such as the full participation of the laity, both in knowing the Church and in committing to the journey of personal holiness, but none of that included an invented autonomy about doctrinal matters.

Yet more than half of today’s Catholics assume that Vatican 2 permitted and even encouraged liberal (loose) moral positions, in contradiction to the consistent magisterial teachings of then, before then, and now.

Yes, we are bound to accept what the Council really said, not what the Council didn’t say (about abortion, contraception, marriage, the family, sexuality, liturgy, the call to holiness, the laity as full participants in the life of the Church but not challengers of the teachings of the Church, the Church being both vertical and horizontal-not one OR the other–, transubstantiation, the prohibition against heterodox interpretation of scripture, the prohibition against sola scriptura, the affirmation of the all-male ministerial priesthood, the requirements of Faithful Citizenship – voting as conscientious Catholics, not detached secularists, etc.) The Council did not reverse any of that. Maybe you know that, but (again) more than half of living Catholics do not know that, and another segment has possibly convinced themselves of something they know did not occur.