Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[KSU]

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.

Very insightful post, Elizabeth.

Cheer up. I wish I had saved certain snippets buried in reports and speeches out of the Vatican during the past 20 years or so that convince me that those running the Church are very concerned. As you know, they have already begun to bring back the beauty, awe, reverence and mystery of the Mass, and to separate the wheat from the chaff. Goodby old ICEL! The cafeteria is closing quickly, and the nuns on the bus had better be prepared to stay on it and ride it into the sunset.

Those running the Church in Rome are not blind, and they know very well why “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.” In fact, each pope since the Council has been sympathetic to the beliefs and perceived betrayals of those Traditionalists (except of course to the accompanying heretics and wooden-headed Sedevacantists). Finally, Pope Benedict bent over backwards and made surprising concessions, even before he became pope, to bring the Traditionalists back.

What the Church knows about the prolonged fight which went on before and during the Council would shock you, but no institution wants to wash its dirty linen in public. I couldn’t believe my eyes when years ago I read the then Holy Father’s own words about the “Socialists and homosexuals” working inside the Council to sell their positions to the others. What resulted was purposefully worded ambiguities in the resultant documents so that unintended interpretations could be facilitated. That probably was the last straw for some of the budding SSPX folks. Recently, I again read that the Council documents will be clarified some day.

 

[KSU]

One could also make the same point about Martin Luther.

And I’d bet the Church has during many meetings with our separated brethren.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Very insightful post, Elizabeth.

Cheer up. I wish I had saved certain snippets buried in reports and speeches out of the Vatican during the past 20 years or so that convince me that those running the Church are very concerned. As you know, they have already begun to bring back the beauty, awe, reverence and mystery of the Mass, and to separate the wheat from the chaff. Goodby old ICEL! The cafeteria is closing quickly, and the nuns on the bus had better be prepared to stay on it and ride it into the sunset.

Those running the Church in Rome are not blind, and they know very well why “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.” In fact, each pope since the Council has been sympathetic to the beliefs and perceived betrayals of those Traditionalists (except of course to the accompanying heretics and wooden-headed Sedevacantists). Finally, Pope Benedict bent over backwards and made surprising concessions, even before he became pope, to bring the Traditionalists back.

But more appear to be leaving than returning. So, were those gestures enough? (Not a criticism of Pope Benedict, just wondering, because there remain a large group of disaffected traditionalists. I do not think just indirect gestures and reassuring words will work. Tradiitonalists want public clarifications.)

What the Church knows about the prolonged fight which went on before and during the Council would shock you, but no institution wants to wash its dirty linen in public. I couldn’t believe my eyes when years ago I read the then Holy Father’s own words about the “Socialists and homosexuals” working inside the Council to sell their positions to the others. What resulted was purposefully worded ambiguities in the resultant documents so that unintended interpretations could be facilitated. That probably was the last straw for some of the budding SSPX folks. Recently, I again read that the Council documents will be clarified some day.

I’m sorry: Which date would that be? Would that be during this century?

20 years’ time…50 years’ time…How much “time” is necessary?

This just doesn’t seem to be rocket science to me. Call me dense. There must be something that escapes me here.

 

[KSU]

But more appear to be leaving than returning…

This just doesn’t seem to be rocket science to me. Call me dense. There must be something that escapes me here.

When I put your question to a bishop who had invited me to lunch a few years ago, he replied that “The Church thinks in terms of centuries.”

Probably also in terms of countries.

 

[Brendan_64]

But more appear to be leaving than returning. So, were those gestures enough? (Not a criticism of Pope Benedict, just wondering, because there remain a large group of disaffected traditionalists.

Is there really a large group of disaffected traditionalists? How much of the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide is made up of disaffected traditionalists.

The call for ‘clarifications’ of Vatican II documents is not an issue for the vast majority of Catholics (laity and clergy alike). Vatican II has pretty much been accepted in its entirety by the very large majority of Catholics. It isn’t a major issue at all.

What seems to come across, and I really intend no offence here, is that what a certain section of ‘traditionalists’ actually wants is that the rest of the Church comes into line with what they (a very tiny minority) believe should be the case.

It really is up to this disaffected tiny minority within the Church to bring themselves back into line with the position of the Church, not expect the Church to act in accordance with their wishes and compromise accordingly. The Church clearly feels that ‘public clarifications’, in order to appease a tiny disaffected minority within the Church, is not needed and not appropriate. Accept the position of the Church.

 

[kozlosap]

Is there really a large group of disaffected traditionalists? How much of the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide is made up of disaffected traditionalists.

The call for ‘clarifications’ of Vatican II documents is not an issue for the vast majority of Catholics (laity and clergy alike). Vatican II has pretty much been accepted in its entirety by the very large majority of Catholics. It isn’t a major issue at all.

What seems to come across, and I really intend no offence here, is that what a certain section of ‘traditionalists’ actually wants is that the rest of the Church comes into line with what they (a very tiny minority) believe should be the case.

It really is up to this disaffected tiny minority within the Church to bring themselves back into line with the position of the Church, not expect the Church to act in accordance with their wishes and compromise accordingly. The Church clearly feels that ‘public clarifications’, in order to appease a tiny disaffected minority within the Church, is not needed and not appropriate. Accept the position of the Church.

:thumbsup:Awesome response!

 

[Elizabeth502]

When I put your question to a bishop who had invited me to lunch a few years ago, he replied that “The Church thinks in terms of centuries.”

That’s why I framed my previous question as I did. I was only half-joking. I realize that ecclesiastical time is not real time. However, with God there is no time: all is present, which is both a positive and a negative, in terms of the individual soul and a community which is the Church and the life of the Church.

I think “centuries” was adequate in previous eras. I think it is less adequate now.

Probably also in terms of countries.

So the informal, internal, multiple “Reformations” going on in the U.S. is not considered a priority? That would make sense if it were happening on a larger or more definitive scale elsewhere. To my knowledge it is not.

I also think that there are common concerns happening in several countries, which could all be addressed at once, regarding those particular concerns. Again, if I were Rome, I would be concerned about the rate of attrition, and any momentum.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Is there really a large group of disaffected traditionalists? How much of the 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide is made up of disaffected traditionalists.

How many disaffected traditionalists would never join a ‘schismatic’ group? And have left long ago, and are still leaving due to a Church, that, on an indiividual parish level, fails to provide a recongizable Catholicism that is significantly different for any Protestant church?

The call for ‘clarifications’ of Vatican II documents is not an issue for the vast majority of Catholics (laity and clergy alike).

What conveniently circular reasoning. It is naturally not “an issue” for anyone who prefers non-clarification, because fuzziness and multiple-choice interpretations allow them to lead a fuzzily Catholic existence. The ones remain include those who are clear, yes, but include also many more than that who are unclear, and are believing and adhering to very unclear understandings. All the research points to that. More than half of Catholics attending weekly Mass interpret V2 in ways that are objectively not in the documents, and never were.

A faux and heterodox version of Vatican II has pretty much been accepted in its entirety by the very large majority of Catholics.

I corrected that for you, and your comment below has to read with that context in mind.

It isn’t a major issue at all.

Yes. Error is not an issue to those who are in error. Correct.

What seems to come across, and I really intend no offence here, is that what a certain section of ‘traditionalists’ actually wants is that the rest of the Church comes into line with what they (a very tiny minority) believe should be the case.

It’s not offensive. Your statement is merely just as ***inaccurate ***as those who talk vaguely about “the spirit of V2” as their reason to “believe what they want to.” It is not the actuality of V2 which traditionalists object to. It is the falsification of that, the perversion of that, the manipulation of that to create their version of a Council which never occurred. It is that which is the dominant flavor of American Catholicism right now.

It really is up to this disaffected tiny minority within the Church to bring themselves back into line with the position of the Church,

The traditionalists (not a tiny minority) are in line with the true position of the Church. You’re just not aware of it yet. Nor are the millions of Catholics who are clueless about what the Council did and did not say. They believe a combination of what some of their heterodox catechists taught, what some of their local authorities merely neglected to correct them on, and what the secular media “catechized” them in terms of what the Council did and did not do. (See Pope Francis’ recent words on this.)

not expect the Church to act in accordance with their wishes and compromise accordingly. The Church clearly feels …

You’re a member of the Curia now? Who knew? How would you know what those in authority within the Church (hint: that’s not the laity) does and does not “clearly” “feel”? You’re psychic?

Accept the position of the Church.

Again, mainline traditionalists have, and long ago. Dissenters have not; they don’t even know what “the position of the Church” is. They’re not being corrected in their dissent, and they are the majority of Catholics right now. Accept the reality of the situation, and the research which has been done to verify this.

 

[Elizabeth502]

With the “dissident” Catholics I’ve spoken to, seems the main reasons they stay …even tho they don’t agree or believe in or think many of the doctrines have been developed improperly, and they have no intention of following them…is because:

1. part of them is worried still that they will go to hell if they officially leave, because this is what they have been taught
2. growing up in the religion has become part of their culture and a ritual they are used to
3. they don’t want to let down their family.

.

I am indeed aware of that, DG, and I think that’s very sad. They are warming the pews, yes. Now, the Church believes that mere attendance at Mass is in itself a positive, because of the opportunity for genuine conversion. (Less possible if they’re not there!) However, it is a sad version of “Catholicism.”

 

[Brendan_64]

How many disaffected traditionalists would never join a ‘schismatic’ group? And have left long ago, and are still leaving due to a Church, that, on an indiividual parish level, fails to provide a recongizable Catholicism that is significantly different for any Protestant church?

Not significantly different? Apart from of course for transubstantiation at the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, etc. And on faith and morals, I have yet to find meet a priest or bishop who is not straight down the line.

Or is it a matter of the type of vestments worn, how much incense is used, whether there are enough stained glass windows, whether or not the priest wears his Roman collar outside of the church, and other such issues that really bother ‘traditionalists’?

My priest today didn’t wear his collar, even at Mass (and he wore socks and sandals too). Does that make him heterodox? Was the Mass I went to this morning illicit as a result? He also washed women’s feet at Maundy Thursday and he doesn’t wear his stole at Confession either.

What conveniently circular reasoning. It is naturally not “an issue” for anyone who prefers non-clarification, because fuzziness and multiple-choice interpretations allow them to lead a fuzzily Catholic existence.

So because a very tiny minority (and it is a tiny minority, a few million out of a Church of nearly 2 billion) see it as a very big issue, then it is a very big issue for the Church as a whole? Does this tiny minority have such influence that it should determine the issues that are of great importance to the Church?

And the characterisation of the vast majority of Catholics as being happy to lead a ‘fuzzily Catholic existence’ is disrespectful and very far from the truth,

The ones remain include those who are clear, yes, but include also many more than that who are unclear, and are believing and adhering to very unclear understandings. All the research points to that.

What research? Quote your sources and references please.

The traditionalists (not a tiny minority) are in line with the true position of the Church. You’re just not aware of it yet.

The same argument used by the SSPX. The hierarchy of the Church aren’t even aware of it yet I suppose.

Nor are the millions of Catholics who are clueless about what the Council did and did not say. They believe a combination of what some of their heterodox catechists taught, what some of their local authorities merely neglected to correct them on, and what the secular media “catechized” them in terms of what the Council did and did not do.

Again, not a lot of respect shown for the majority of Catholics. The majority hold a different view from a small minority, therefore they are mis-informed fools? That would be quite a contemptuous view to hold of one’s fellow Catholics.

They’re not being corrected in their dissent, and they are the majority of Catholics right now. Accept the reality of the situation, and the research which has been done to verify this.

So the majority of Catholics are dissenters? Do you include the majority of the clergy in that also? As for research, if you’re going to keep say “research show this” then quote your sources, otherwise your statement is pointless.

 

[KSU]

Not significantly different? Apart from of course for transubstantiation at the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, etc. And on faith and morals, I have yet to find meet a priest or bishop who is not straight down the line.
Or is it a matter of the type of vestments worn, how much incense is used, whether there are enough stained glass windows, whether or not the priest wears his Roman collar outside of the church, and other such issues that really bother ‘traditionalists’?
My priest today didn’t wear his collar, even at Mass (and he wore socks and sandals too). Does that make him heterodox? Was the Mass I went to this morning illicit as a result? He also washed women’s feet at Maundy Thursday and he doesn’t wear his stole at Confession either.
So because a very tiny minority (and it is a tiny minority, a few million out of a Church of nearly 2 billion) see it as a very big issue, then it is a very big issue for the Church as a whole? Does this tiny minority have such influence that it should determine the issues that are of great importance to the Church?
And the characterisation of the vast majority of Catholics as being happy to lead a ‘fuzzily Catholic existence’ is disrespectful and very far from the truth,
What research? Quote your sources and references please.
The same argument used by the SSPX. The hierarchy of the Church aren’t even aware of it yet I suppose.
Again, not a lot of respect shown for the majority of Catholics. The majority hold a different view from a small minority, therefore they are mis-informed fools? That would be quite a contemptuous view to hold of one’s fellow Catholics.
So the majority of Catholics are dissenters? Do you include the majority of the clergy in that also? As for research, if you’re going to keep say “research show this” then quote your sources, otherwise your statement is pointless.

Elizabeth, where do you find the strength? An orthodox member of the Church trying to debate with invincible ignorance out of a sense of fraternal correction does more good for the orthodox member than it does for the misinformed, but that’s still a plus. An additional plus is that during the “debate” some of the orthodox seed falls on the “good ground” of those with open minds who simply monitor the debate.

BTW, I mentioned that the Church probably thinks in terms of countries (as well as centuries) because, worldwide, more Catholics are returning and joining than are leaving. “Be not afraid!”

Further, I think you will agree that the Vatican knows that it must shrink centuries to decades and is in fact beginning to do so through modern technology. Cheer up!

P. S.
Please say a prayer for Brendan’s “straight down the middle” priest. Perhaps we can ask CAF to take up a collection for some shoes and vestments. And maybe for some additional seating at the Church I attended in London (perhaps the Brompton Oratory near Harrods?) some 15 years ago.

 

[Brendan_64]

P. S.
Please say a prayer for Brendan’s “straight down the middle” priest. Perhaps we can ask CAF to take up a collection for some shoes and vestments.

That priest has more charity in his little finger than you have in your entire body. The man is a friend of mine and a very decent guy. How dare you insult him. Insulting me is one thing, but don’t insult someone you have never even had any contact with. He’s a fine priest full of charity and compassion, and I count him as a friend. How dare you!

 

[KSU]

That priest has more charity in his little finger than you have in your entire body… How dare you insult him.

No, my friend, how dare you imply that I would insult your priest? Don’t you ever tire of straw man arguments and putting words in people’s mouths? It is you, Brendan, who gratuitously brought up the subject of your priest, and it was not to praise him; it was to show his unorthodox behavior viz:

QUOTE
Or is it a matter of the type of vestments worn, how much incense is used, whether there are enough stained glass windows, whether or not the priest wears his Roman collar outside of the church, and other such issues that really bother ‘traditionalists’?
My priest today didn’t wear his collar, even at Mass (and he wore socks and sandals too). Does that make him heterodox? Was the Mass I went to this morning illicit as a result? He also washed women’s feet at Maundy Thursday and he doesn’t wear his stole at Confession either.
END QUOTE

I wonder if your priest is pleased about that! And was it really necessary to again insult small t traditionalists?

Try winning a debate with restraint and straight forward arguments and relevant discourse rather than insulting orthodox Catholics and then retreating to feigned insults or change of subjects.

Don’t you care that every time you misstate Catholic teaching or, as one example, equate Archbishop Tutu’s tortured, anti-Catholic teachings with Catholic orthodoxy, that you insult the Church and every orthodox person on this board? Don’t you realize that I and others just let your insults go by (e.g., that I and Monkey1976 are sinners when we state certain Church teaching you dislike)?

Since no one returns your insults, your debate strategy seems to be to feign them. BTW, I don’t for a second doubt that your good “priest has more charity in his little finger than * have in [my] entire body.” So what? Does that win your debate?*

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not significantly different? Apart from of course for transubstantiation at the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, etc. And on faith and morals, I have yet to find meet a priest or bishop who is not straight down the line.

We’re talking about the laity. Perhaps the laity in the UK are all orthodox, not in the U.S.

Or is it a matter of the type of vestments worn, how much incense is used, whether there are enough stained glass windows, whether or not the priest wears his Roman collar outside of the church, and other such issues that really bother ‘traditionalists’?

My priest today didn’t wear his collar, even at Mass (and he wore socks and sandals too). Does that make him heterodox? Was the Mass I went to this morning illicit as a result? He also washed women’s feet at Maundy Thursday and he doesn’t wear his stole at Confession either.

:yawn: Same old tired straw men, eh, Brendan? None of that I discussed. I wonder why you focus on superficial externals. Is that what you think a “liberal” is, or a “conservative?” Not according to common definitions.

So because a very tiny minority (and it is a tiny minority, a few million out of a Church of nearly 2 billion) see it as a very big issue, then it is a very big issue for the Church as a whole?

The question of authority in the Church, and who has it and does not have it, is one of the central teachings which allows the Church even to function with any sort of unity whatsoever. It’s a favorite issue of First World Liberal Catholics that they have been given some silent authority by virtue of V2, to decide how much they need to conform to the teachings of the Church (all the Councils + the Catechism + the references in that Catechism). Third World Catholics are far less interested in the topic of lay “authority,” but they also have much less publicity power in the Church, and tend not to be in the business of creating opposition.

And the characterisation of the vast majority of Catholics as being happy to lead a ‘fuzzily Catholic existence’ is disrespectful and very far from the truth, …What research? Quote your sources and references please.

Are you new to CAF? Or do you just never read the News forums? Abundant links are there.

Again, not a lot of respect shown for the majority of Catholics. The majority hold a different view from a small minority, therefore they are mis-informed fools? That would be quite a contemptuous view to hold of one’s fellow Catholics.

Again, here we go. I don’t make the news, Brendan, just report it.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=763890

So the majority of Catholics are dissenters?

According to parish priests and to survey results, yes. And those lay Catholic dissenters are so by their own admission. Possibly you just don’t wish to believe it, and possibly you are lucky enough not to encounter it much, but the majority of baptized U.S. Catholics are in fact dissenters.

usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050418/18american.htm

Do you include the majority of the clergy in that also?

No, that indication is not in such reports. There do remain a minority of dissenters among priests, however (and a smaller minority among bishops, of course).

"Among America’s 67 million Catholics there is a distinct minority who feel that Pope John Paul II’s traditionalist ideas and hard line on social issues put the church back on track, giving it structure and clear guidance. But the pope’s teachings made keeping the faith more difficult for the many so-called cafeteria Catholics, who embrace some but not all of the church’s tenets. According to a recent Gallup Poll, 78 percent of American Catholics support allowing Catholics to use birth control, 63 percent think priests should be able to marry, and 55 percent think women should be ordained as priests. Last week Gallup reported that more Catholics than non-Catholics believe that homosexual behavior, divorce, and stem-cell and human-embryo research are morally acceptable. “The paradox,” says David Gibson, author of The Coming Catholic Church, “is that while [the pope] was enormously popular, he did not necessarily change behavior” of the lay people in America.

But he had an enormous influence on the clergy. The seminarians at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary outside Philadelphia, like many who found their vocation during the 26years of John Paul II’s pontificate, “are drawn to the fact that the pope had the conviction to say, ‘This is not an open question,’ " says the rector, Joseph Prior. Dean Hoge, a Catholic University of America sociologist who has studied priests’ attitudes for decades, notes that “John Paul II priests” are generally more traditionalist and often at odds with the more liberal clergy ordained during the 1960s and 1970s. “The result,” says the Rev. Robert Silva, president of the National Federation of Priests’ Councils, “has been a growing gulf between the clergy ordained since 1985 and the laity” who, in the post-Vatican II years, had grown used to having more autonomy within their parishes.”

usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050418/18american.htm

And there are abundant other confirming reports, surveys, polls, and interviews conducted over the last 10 years, minimum. They only don’t exist if you choose not to see them. Again, however, it may be far more true in the U.S. than in the UK, and undoubtedly it is far truer in the industrialized world overall.

 

[livingwordunity]

What the Church knows about the prolonged fight which went on before and during the Council would shock you, but no institution wants to wash its dirty linen in public. I couldn’t believe my eyes when years ago I read the then Holy Father’s own words about the “Socialists and homosexuals” working inside the Council to sell their positions to the others. **What resulted was purposefully worded ambiguities in the resultant documents so that unintended interpretations could be facilitated.**That probably was the last straw for some of the budding SSPX folks. Recently, I again read that the Council documents will be clarified some day.

Such as? Specific quote from VII please.