Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Brendan_64]

What we don’t have the authority to do is judge the destination of a particular soul. What we do have both the authority and positive duty to do is judge the actions we witness.

No you haven’t got that authority at all. You can say what the Church’s objective teaching is regarding what is and isn’t considered to be a sin, but you most certainly do not have the authority to pass judgement on whether or not any individual is committing, or has committed a sin. Only God can see into a person’s mind and soul.

One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner - how can we do that without making the judgement that a particular action is sinful?

Be very careful there. By admonishing the ‘sinner’ you could be putting your own soul in great danger.John 8:1 “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. We need to be really sure we are without sin before going there (and I’m sure Jesus wasn’t just referring to Pharisees not having committed adultery).

By virtue of our baptism and confirmation, we have the authority to properly apply the teaching of the Church when it comes to judging the actions of our fellow men. If we didn’t have this authority - if it was a sin to judge at all, which is what you seem to imply - then the very act of declaring that someone is “judging” is a sin, because it is, in itself, a judgement.

You have a duty to spread the Word of God. By virtue of your Baptism you have the authority to cast out demons, but you do not have the authority to judge someone. To can teach the Church’s teachings on sin, but you cannot judge.

 

[Brendan_64]

You would have thought correctly. But, Brendan, if you think that the Catholic laity (and some, luckily a minority of, clergy) find the above an obstacle, then I must inform you that you either haven’t been watching what’s been going on, or you have been blissfully protected against the reality.

I can only speak from a UK perspective, but I can honestly say that I have never, ever heard any member of the clergy say, or even suggest the possibility, that there is no Hell. Perhaps things are better on this side of the Atlantic? It’s a bit like the fact that I have never seen any Mass that has been celebrated illicitly (despite all the claims online that seem to suggest this is a widespread problem). Perhaps things are liturgically better in the UK also?

I have of course heard an occasional Catholic say something like, “I don’t believe in Hell”, or, “I don’t believe the Devil exists”, but then again I’ve also heard certain Catholics say other things that are out of line with Church teaching. But these people are very much the exception, and often appear to be Catholics that attend Mass infrequently. From my experience they do not represent a significant section of the Catholic faithful.

As I said, perhaps things are different in the USA?

 

[KSU]

What we don’t have the authority to do is judge the destination of a particular soul. What we do have both the authority and positive duty to do is judge the actions we witness. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner - how can we do that without making the judgement that a particular action is sinful? If we see two men simulating a wedding, we can rightly judge that what they’re doing is objectively immoral. If we see a man attempting to rape a woman, we can judge that his actions are objectively immoral. If we see someone write that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three expressions of - but not distinct persons within - a single Triune God, we can judge that the writing is objectively heretical. If we see a priest pronounce the words of institution over Doritos and diet soda, we can judge that the priest has committed the sin of sacrilege.
By virtue of our baptism and confirmation, we have the authority to properly apply the teaching of the Church when it comes to judging the actions of our fellow men. If we didn’t have this authority - if it was a sin to judge at all, which is what you seem to imply - then the very act of declaring that someone is “judging” is a sin, because it is, in itself, a judgement.

Excellent summation of Catholic teaching on the issue, Monkey1976, as contrasted by the liberalism in vogue since Vatican II. Elizabeth also made some good points above.

Contrary to what one hears from liberals, at times even members of the laity have a duty to judge the actions or statements of wayward Catholics insofar as it may be necessary to administer fraternal correction, by which is meant:

QUOTE…the admonishing of one’s neighbor by a private individual with the purpose of reforming him or, if possible, preventing his sinful indulgence. This is clearly distinguishable from an official disciplining, whose mouthpiece is a judge or other like superior, whose object is the punishment of one found to be guilty, and whose motive is not so directly the individual advantage of the offender as the furtherance of the common good. That there is, upon occasion and with due regard to circumstances, an obligation to administer fraternal correction there can be no doubt. This is a conclusion not only deducible from the natural law binding us to love and to assist one another, but also explicitly contained in positive precept such as the inculcation of Christ: “If thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother” (Matthew 18:15). Given a sufficiently grave condition of spiritual distress calling for succour in this way, this commandment may exact fulfillment under pain of mortal sin… END QUOTE

It would be refreshing to at least once during a discussion such as this to not have this truth:

“The Church always has taught that people who die deliberately estranged from God’s mercy go to hell.”

supplanted by this truth:

“The Church has never said that any particular person is going to Hell, that only God will judge, not man, not the Church.”

The latter truth is not of course directly on topic or even at issue. It is dangerous to present it to a neophyte as a stand-alone counter to the on-topic, hard-saying first truth because it then becomes a half-truth. (Apparently, sometimes a neophyte prefers a half-truth to a hard saying. So be it.)

 

[Ender]

For lay people to judge any of their fellow man on the basis of his deeds is acting in contradiction to what Jesus taught us. A lay person is at risk of putting his soul in grave peril by judging his fellow man (even if he sees them committing what he regards as serious sin).

• On the contrary**,** Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. xvi, 4): “You become worse than the sinner if you fail to correct him.” *(Aquinas)
  Ender

 

[Monkey1976]

No you haven’t got that authority at all. You can say what the Church’s objective teaching is regarding what is and isn’t considered to be a sin, but you most certainly do not have the authority to pass judgement on whether or not any individual is committing, or has committed a sin. Only God can see into a person’s mind and soul.

When the Church teaches that a particular action is objectively sinful, we can rightly say that the person committing the action has committed a sin. We can even - for certain actions deemed to be grave matter by the Church - say that a person has most likely committed a mortal sin, and that if they were to die unrepentant they would most likely be bound for Hell. What we can’t do is definitively state that someone is going to Hell.

Be very careful there. By admonishing the ‘sinner’ you could be putting your own soul in great danger.John 8:1 “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”. We need to be really sure we are without sin before going there (and I’m sure Jesus wasn’t just referring to Pharisees not having committed adultery).

But we’re not “casting stones” when we judge. Christ didn’t deny that the woman had indeed committed the sin of adultery, but he admonished those who took it upon themselves to execute the punishment due that sin under the law while carrying sins themselves which could have been equally punished. There’s a world of difference between making the judgement that someone has sinned and taking it upon ourselves to execute the punishment due to that sin. That is reserved to God and His Church. We can tell a person who has just participated in the abortion that they have committed a mortal sin, but we cannot ourselves impose the canonical penalty for that particular sin - that’s the realm of the Church, which has determined that such an action immediately and automatically incurs excommunication if the person is a baptized Catholic. What we can do is inform them of the punishment that they have incurred. Neither can we damn them to Hell - that’s exclusively reserved to God. What we can do is tell them that their actions have placed their soul into a state that, if left uncorrected, will result in them spending eternity in Hell.

You have a duty to spread the Word of God. By virtue of your Baptism you have the authority to cast out demons, but you do not have the authority to judge someone. To can teach the Church’s teachings on sin, but you cannot judge.

Leaving aside the issue of the laity performing exorcisms - as that’s a whole other can of worms - I’'ll explain again: We have not only the right, but the positive duty to judge. If we see someone committing an action - explicitly supporting gay “marriage”, supporting or procuring abortions, desecrating the Eucharist, denigrating the ordained, etc - and fail to correct them when we can do so, then were are, by virtue of our silence, complicit in their sin. The Confiteor directly mentions these: opere et omissione - “What I have done, and what I have failed to do”. By making the proper judgement and informing another person that they are committing a sin, we aren’t condemning them, we’re helping both them and ourselves: They can now, with knowledge that they have committed a sin, express the necessary sorrow for that sin and accept the Sacrament of Penance. For ourselves, we have avoided being complicit in their sin by speaking out against their actions.

 

[Brendan_64]

“The Church always has taught that people who die deliberately estranged from God’s mercy go to hell.”

And who within our Church has the authority to determine who is estranged from God when they die? Not even the Pope has that authority, certainly not any of the Catholic laity. Only God can determine that.

supplanted by this truth:

“The Church has never said that any particular person is going to Hell, that only God will judge, not man, not the Church.”

There is no conflict whatsoever between these two truths. This second truth is simply a statement of fact. The Church does not, ever, state that any particular person is going to Hell.

The latter truth is not of course directly on topic or even at issue. It is dangerous to present it to a neophyte as a stand-alone counter to the on-topic, hard-saying first truth because it then becomes a half-truth. (Apparently, sometimes a neophyte prefers a half-truth to a hard saying. So be it.)

Is ‘neophyte’ a term used by the Church for a particular group of members of the Faithful? Do we now have degrees of laity with our Church? Do you have to pass an exam on piety to achieve a grade above ‘neophyte’?

And it is not a half truth that the Church has never said that any particular person is going to Hell, that is a complete truth. Only God will judge this, not man, not the Church. That is an absolute, undeniable fact.

 

[Brendan_64]

The latter truth is not of course directly on topic or even at issue. It is dangerous to present it to a neophyte as a stand-alone counter to the on-topic, hard-saying first truth because it then becomes a half-truth. (Apparently, sometimes a neophyte prefers a half-truth to a hard saying. So be it.)

Actually the Church does use the term neophyte to refer to a convert for 1 year after conversion, a newly ordained priest, or someone who has just taken monastic vows.

 

[KSU]

And who within our Church has the authority to determine who is estranged from God when they die? Not even the Pope has that authority, certainly not any of the Catholic laity. Only God can determine that.

There is no conflict whatsoever between these two truths. This second truth is simply a statement of fact. The Church does not, ever, state that any particular person is going to Hell.

Is ‘neophyte’ a term used by the Church for a particular group of members of the Faithful? Do we now have degrees of laity with our Church? Do you have to pass an exam on piety to achieve a grade above ‘neophyte’?

And it is not a half truth that the Church has never said that any particular person is going to Hell, that is a complete truth. Only God will judge this, not man, not the Church. That is an absolute, undeniable fact.

First, my friend, after Monkey1976 and Elizabeth joined me in an attempt to instruct you regarding a beginner-level teaching of the Church, I had hoped that you finally would stop using straw man arguments to avoid that teaching. You know very well that no one on this board even hinted that he/she or the Church has the authority to tell a particular person that that person IS damned to hell. Yet you constantly accuse us of doing so, and then tear down that straw man.

Monkey1976 put it very well: “What we don’t have the authority to do is judge the destination of a particular soul. What we do have both the authority and positive duty to do is judge the actions we witness. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner - how can we do that without making the judgement that a particular action is sinful?”

Second, you ask, “Is ‘neophyte’ a term used by the Church for a particular group of members of the Faithful? Do we now have degrees of laity with our Church?” Do you have to pass an exam on piety to achieve a grade above ‘neophyte’? "

Yes, Brendan, it is a term used by the Church for a particular group of members of the Faithful (as you apparently just discovered, ruining my reply).

You also ask, "Do you have to pass an exam on piety to achieve a grade above ‘neophyte’? "

Piety, no. Today one must prove to be only somewhat smarter than a door knob to advance.

 

[Brendan_64]

First, my friend, after Monkey1976 and Elizabeth joined me in an attempt to instruct you regarding a beginner-level teaching of the Church, I had hoped that you finally would stop using straw man arguments to avoid that teaching. You know very well that no one on this board even hinted that he/she or the Church has the authority to tell a particular person that that person IS damned to hell. Yet you constantly accuse us of doing so, and then tear down that straw man.

I have not accused anyone on this board of doing anything of the sort. Nor am I avoiding any teaching.

So you are now instructing me on beginner level teaching of the Church are you? I really don’t think I need you to instruct me on any teachings of the Church right now, but if I change my mind and want some instruction I’ll ask. Thanks for offering.

Piety, no. Today one must prove to be only somewhat smarter than a door knob to advance.

So there are now levels of advancement within the laity? Do people move up through various degrees? And there was me thinking that we were all equal.

 

[Monkey1976]

So there are now levels of advancement within the laity? Do people move up through various degrees? And there was me thinking that we were all equal.

There aren’t “levels of advancement”, but there are people who dig deeper into the truths of the faith than others. That doesn’t mean that those who do are “better”, but it imposes upon them the duty to instruct their brethren when they see them going astray. We are all equal in dignity, but that doesn’t mean were are identical. St. Paul explains it better than I can:

[8]
To one indeed, by the Spirit, is given the word of wisdom: and to another, the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; [9] To another, faith in the same spirit; to another, the grace of healing in one Spirit; [10] To another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, the discerning of spirits; to another, diverse kinds of tongues; to another, interpretation of speeches.[11] But all these things one and the same Spirit worketh, dividing to every one according as he will. [12] For as the body is one, and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ.

 

[KSU]

So you are now instructing me on beginner level teaching of the Church are you? I really don’t think I need you to instruct me on any teachings of the Church right now, but if I change my mind and want some instruction I’ll ask. Thanks for offering.
So there are now levels of advancement within the laity? Do people move up through various degrees? And there was me thinking that we were all equal.

You see, Brendan? That alone is proof that you do need instruction in beginner-level Catholicism. Even neophytes know that, in the basement of the Vatican, there exists a group of laity–The Secrete Order of the Kumquat. The Order has taken an oath to counterbalance Catholic Liberalism by:

1. Suppressing womenhood by opposing the beliefs of Nuns On The Bus and Sister Jeannine Gramick;
2. Suppressing homosexuals by misinterpreting the Bible against them;
3. Disregarding the Bible’s clear commandment for open boarders and grants of amnesty to illegal Democrats;
4. Rejecting some Bishops’s declaration of immorality regarding those who oppose the call for huge tax increases and huge deficit spending for the care of illegal Democrats and those who will not work; and
5. Supporting the Compendium of the Catholic Church and the Constitution of the United States.

 

[je333]

And how exactly is this being misinterpreted by ‘liberal’ Catholics? How else can it be interpreted other than the Church has never said that any particular person is going to Hell, that only God will judge, not man, not the Church?

Once we put ourselves in a position of not just explicitly judging, but even implying that certain individuals or groups of individuals will be going to Hell, then we are at the very least assuming to know the mind of God, and possibly even putting ourselves in the position of God in judging others.

Matthew 7:1 is pretty clear and unambiguous “Judge not, that you be not judged.”

We must not, ever, judge anyone on the basis of their actions, or anything else about them. We are called to reach out indiscriminately with charity, love and compassion, equally to all people, and unconditionally with no thought as to whether we consider them to be sinners or otherwise. Jesus did exactly that, and we are called to do the same.

We are here to love our fellow man unconditionally and spread the Word that Jesus taught us. We are not here to judge anyone. If we judge others and condemn them as sinners we are doing the opposite of what Jesus taught us, and we are putting our own souls in very serious danger.

If we exalt ourselves above some of our fellow men and look upon them with criticism, we are in danger of becoming like the Pharisee looking upon the Tax Collector. Who, does the parable suggest, is more likely to end up in Heaven, the devout Pharisee, or the sinful Tax Collector?

Archbishop Tutu said, “We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven. God has a soft spot for sinners. His standards are quite low.” There may be more than a grain of truth in that.

The Lord’s prayer wouldn’t mean much when a person prays
“Forgive us our trespasses AS we forgive those who trespass against us.” It is a conditional prayer. God will only forgive our sins if we forgive the sins of the people who have sinned against us.

 

[KSU]

Correct, and the Lord’s prayer would mean even less when a person refuses to acknowledge that this or that of what the Lord’s infallible Church defines as trespasses aren’t really trespasses because nobody has the authority to judge anyone else.

I hope Archbishop Tutu, who said God’s standards are quite low isn’t offended.

 

[Brendan_64]

There aren’t “levels of advancement”, but there are people who dig deeper into the truths of the faith than others. That doesn’t mean that those who do are “better”, but it imposes upon them the duty to instruct their brethren when they see them going astray. We are all equal in dignity, but that doesn’t mean were are identical. St. Paul explains it better than I can:

You do have a point there, however that does not mean that the more ‘hard-line’ the teachings are interpreted, the truer the interpretation. It doesn’t mean that the ‘conservative’ or more ‘traditionalist’ the lay-person, the better catechised he is. Take a look at the SSPX for example, very ‘traditional’, very ‘hard-line’, but also very wrong (and no KSU they did not honourably ‘walk away on principle’, they were suspended by Rome, and their bishops excommunicated).

There are also many different means and ways in which one can deepen ones’ faith without poring over documents and pulling them apart, although that approach does have much merit. The charismatic movement comes to mind, which while not everyone’s cup of tea, creates a closeness with the Holy Spirit, and in many ways reflects important elements of the early Church. There is also the deepening of ones faith through charitable work and compassion towards others. Through reading of scripture etc.

Whatever the approach a person takes towards deepening his faith, the foundation of it all has to be the Gospels. It is not about looking for what is the ‘hardest line’ interpretation of Scripture, and then taking the approach, “That is a good ‘conservative’ interpretation (of a selective bit of Scripture) backed up by ‘hard-sayings’, so that is clearly a more ‘Catholic’ approach”.

 

[Brendan_64]

I hope Archbishop Tutu, who said God’s standards are quite low isn’t offended.

Perhaps you might like to extend the offer you made to me, and approach Archbishop Tutu, offering him personal tuition on basic Christian theology?

 

[KSU]

Perhaps you might like to extend the offer you made to me, and approach Archbishop Tutu, offering him personal tuition on basic Christian theology?

Whether you realize it or not, constantly changing the subject is your acknowledgement that you have no relevant answers to the specific Church teachings people on this board are trying to explain to you.

As to the good Archbishop Tutu, because he does sound like some Catholic liberals, I’ll let a few of his words of wisdom speak for themselves. Here are excerpts from his book, ‘God Is Not A Christian: And Other Provocations’:

“We all must be allowed to love each other with honor. Yet all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people are persecuted…Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes…the genital act… If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reasons have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual? The Jesus I worship is not likely to collaborate with those who vilify and persecute an already oppressed minority…hence my support for the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate.”

Brendan,I, as a conservative Catholic who employs selective bits of Scripture backed up by hard-sayings (your description of me to Monkey1976), I am too busy vilifying and persecuting oppressed minorities to engage in serious debate with you. I tried debate earlier, but all it got me was your labeling me a sinner and unorthodox. Seriously, my friend, I don’t mind. Besides, you got it half right; I am a sinner (but not because, as you claim, I quote Scripture, hard sayings and Church teaching to refute your claims).

In your post #879, you said “(and no, KSU, they [SSPX] did not honourably ‘walk away on principle’, they were suspended by Rome, and their bishops excommunicated).” Again, you got it half right. Yes, of course, SSPX was suspended by Rome, and their bishops excommunicated. But that was because SSPX already had became Sedevacantist and left the Church by claiming to be the one, true Catholic Church. What I said was:
“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.”

 

[Brendan_64]

Yes, of course, SSPX was suspended by Rome, and their bishops excommunicated. But that was because SSPX already had became Sedevacantist and left the Church by claiming to be the one, true Catholic Church.

And where did you get that from. The SSPX never left the Church. The SSPX are not Sedevacantists.

Do you actually know what the term Sedevacantist means? It means the belief that the Chair of Peter is vacant (i.e. that there is no valid Pope currently in situ).

The SSPX has never denied that any Pope since Vatican II has been a valid Pope. They acknowledge the Pope as the supreme head of the Catholic Church. They are not, and have never been Sedevacantists. They acknowledge that the Pope is the Supreme Pontif.

Your claim, that the SSPX had already left the Church as Sedevacantists before they were suspended, is absolute nonsense.

So you are claiming that the SSPX walked out of the Church as Sedevacantists before their bishops were excommunicated and before they were suspended? That is completely incorrect.

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

That statement is wrong on so many levels. They didn’t leave, they did not act with ‘decency’, they wanted to stay and promote their agenda within the Church, defying both the Pope and an Ecumenical Council, they left the Church no choice other than to suspend them. Just accept your errors rather than trying to maintain that your statement is correct.

 

[KSU]

And where did you get that from. The SSPX never left the Church. The SSPX are not Sedevacantists.

By Phil Lawler Jan. 28, 2009 (CWNews.com)

EXCERPT

"…The deadly mistake that Archbishop Lefebvre made-- the mistake for which the SSPX is still paying-- was the decision to set himself up as a teaching authority separate from the Holy See. The teaching authority of the Catholic Church resides in the Pope and the bishops who are in communion with him. By breaking away from that communion, the Lefebvrists lost what teaching authority they had. Their fundamental error lay in the belief that they could be the authoritative voice of the Catholic tradition (or Tradition, as they preferred), while remaining separated from the Catholic Church. That is logically as well as theologically impossible.
To complicate matters for themselves, the Lefebvrists have maintained that the Church founded by Jesus Christ exists only in the institutional Catholic Church. Unhappy with the Vatican II formulation that the universal Church founded by Christ “subsists” in the Catholic Church, they have insisted that all other Christian bodies are lost in error, and the only practical goal of ecumenical affairs is to convince these erring Christians of their errors… "

Brendan, even though you want to change the subject back to the SSPX, I’ll play along briefly. Some time after SSPX left the Roman Catholic Church, it is my understanding that it rid itself of some openly card-carrying Sedevacantists. That and other RECENT admissions by SSPX means that, today, Traditionalist may be the better term. Call them what you will, my point remains the same: SSPX acted more openly and decently than the termites now working from within the Church to destroy her.

 

[Elizabeth502]

SSPX acted more openly and decently than the termites now working from within the Church to destroy her.

It also took some courage. It may be, to some, foolish courage, misguided courage, but they acted in a way consistent with their convictions, making a clear stand instead of behaving like moles or a hidden Fifth Column.

But I continue to wonder why it is not alarming to those running the Church that a group of observant, otherwise non-heterodox Catholics in line with Church teaching would even find it necessary to engage in such high-risk behavior and make themselves so vulnerable to repercussions. And why they are still out there.

This is the Elephant in the Cathedral that is not being addressed: not the existence of these groups themselves, but the root causes, and why there is more than one such group. The passion and consistent conviction in the Church appears to be on the side of traditionalists, not on the side of wishy-washy-take-your-pick-which-doctrine-to-oppose-today liberalism. I would be asking myself some questions, if I were Rome. I would want to know how I could prevent further hemorrhaging and disaffection from the traditionalist side, having already seen the disaster on the other side of the spectrum.

 

[Brendan_64]

It also took some courage. It may be, to some, foolish courage, misguided courage, but they acted in a way consistent with their convictions, making a clear stand instead of behaving like moles or a hidden Fifth Column.

One could also make the same point about Martin Luther.