Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[tom_c_1]

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.

 

[Peepers]

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.

I am finding that it is a hot topic around here. My take on it so far is that conservative Catholics will even go as far as to see it as heresy to suggest that the Church has ever changed its teachings on moral issues. More moderate Catholics (such as Noonan) make the claim that the Church does change its moral teachings in response to secular change. Liberal or progressive Catholics seem to bring a Protestant ethic to the Church, and want the Church to see their point of view, from what I can tell. My position is somewhere between conservative and moderate. I find the teaching of a static moral code to be the high ground that the Church holds in theological discussions. However, my read of history is that the Church has modified its teachings over time. You could call this an expanded understanding which accumulates with time. There are sincere Christian denominations which are more socially progressive in a secular sense. I have no idea why someone who favors abortion, or who believes in including gays in the sacrament of marriage would want to be in the Catholic Church. Nor do I understand how they are expecting to change the Church in their own lifetimes on these issues. I would think that they would find their efforts to be very frustrating.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Would you prefer people left the Church that Christ built, or stay within the Church to continue working out their faith with fear and trembling and where they may find the fullness of His truth eventually?

 

[kildare]

I have no idea why someone who favors abortion, or who believes in including gays in the sacrament of marriage would want to be in the Catholic Church.

They wont want to leave if they believe that the real presence of Jesus Christ is there in the Eucharist at Mass. I mean that is beside the point, of whatever economic, social, political, cultural or personal views a person might have.
The Catholic Church is the universal Church and it holds together peoples from all types of backgrounds, however it is held together by obedience to the Magesterium.
I think a great deal of damage was done to that authority in the Galileo affair, which had the affect of seeing the Church backtrack and change its position. Of course it had no other choice and the reality is that the whole affair was never properly explained to the public at large, but that at least is the perception.
Under these circumstance its probably not hard to concieve of the church perhaps modifying its position with regard to something such as married clergy at some point in the future. From there its a short step to women priests etc.
So many people, who are convinced of the Truth of the Church but are socially liberal, remain because they believe that, whatever the church says today, tomorrow it will be agreeing with them.

They are wrong, but they can plead ignorance I suppose.

 

[TedDC]

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.

Probably because of the many things on which he/she is in accord with the Church.

 

[Barbkw]

St. Paul asked his congregations to confront the disobedient unrepentant. I believe he said that if they did not, then he would.

 

[foundmyfaith]

I am somewhat liberal.

I returned to the Church after a long absence. There are certain aspects of our Doctrine that make me uneasy. I have wallowed in sin at times, and made decisions that horrify me now. I understand how a person can stay with the church even though they do not agree with some teachings.

For me, It comes down to Papal infallibility. While I might not be able to get it in my thick head that the teaching is ‘right’ in and of itself, I firmly believe that the Pope has it right. I just pray that God will heal my wrong thinking.

 

[eagle_eye222001]

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.

Part of the reason people stay in groups they may disagree with in certain areas is they want to remain in the culture of the group. So person A disagrees largely with the Church on abortion, but they don’t want to sit at home and lose the culture/social aspect of church. I think for many its simply easier to be partly believing Catholic than to sit at home and declare oneself totally isolated from the church.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I don’t understand why so many people on CAF seem to want to push people out of the Church. There’s another long thread asking why “cafeteria” Catholics don’t leave and join Protestant churches.

How about this: People stay in the Church even when they disagree with some aspects or hope that some aspects will change because they believe it is the Church started by Jesus, believe that even when it isn’t perfect it’s still good, and believe in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

In a slightly different area, every time I hear about another case of priestly sex abuse or episcopal cover-up, I’m tempted to leave. How can this keep happening and when will it end? But even though I’m troubled, I remind myself that I believe this is the Church started by Jesus, believe that even when bad things happen there is still good within the Church, and believe in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

 

[kkmousse]

I believe that everyone has the right to their own beliefs, no matter what church they belong to, or whatever. As long as that is what they believe in.
As a Catholic I attend mass on a regular basis and do the best that I can to follow its teachings. However I do have beliefs that do not fit with the Church also. I will have to deal with them at the pearly gates when the time comes.
I think it is wrong to push my beliefs on other people and think a few ways on the topic of abortion. It may be wrong for me, but I have no right to say it is wrong for someone else. It is their right to make that decision themselves. They will deal with the consequences themselves, I can not do that for them either.
I also believe that Laws of man should no in infilltrated with those of a religious faith at all. If that was the case, then someday we will have “Shia” laws impossed on us also. It is not a good idea to open the door to imposing ones beliefs on the masses of those not of your faith. That is why laws should be broadly enough written to accomidate all beliefs. They should have nothing to do with the church. We are not a religious state but a unified Republic that allows people of different beliefs to live togather in peace.

 

[ndeparis88]

I don’t understand why so many people on CAF seem to want to push people out of the Church. There’s another long thread asking why “cafeteria” Catholics don’t leave and join Protestant churches.

How about this: People stay in the Church even when they disagree with some aspects or hope that some aspects will change because they believe it is the Church started by Jesus, believe that even when it isn’t perfect it’s still good, and believe in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

In a slightly different area, every time I hear about another case of priestly sex abuse or episcopal cover-up, I’m tempted to leave. How can this keep happening and when will it end? But even though I’m troubled, I remind myself that I believe this is the Church started by Jesus, believe that even when bad things happen there is still good within the Church, and believe in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist.

It helps to remember that it is not the Church’s fault for those actions by priest it is the choice of them and only them. The church is good, it’s just people that can be bad. But that’s why the Church is here.

 

[Peepers]

It us also true that ideas which were once radical, such as giving women the right to own property and to vote, are accepted as moral precepts now. We should be careful when it comes to assessing what is radical in terms of morality. If not for radical thinking, we would not have the freedoms and dignity which we have now. Many of us might be slaves.

 

[Elizabeth502]

. However, my read of history is that the Church has modified its teachings over time.

=/= this:

You could call this an expanded understanding which accumulates with time.

Two different dynamics there. Understanding and explanation is not the same thing as a principle. Some teachings have undergone modfication in emphasis. In addition, some things were informally “taught” or “understood” or even preached, but never codified. Other teachings were matters of open-ended belief (such as Limbo) or matters of discipline (such as Friday abstinence), rather than dogmatic or doctrinal matters.

The core teachings, however, have not changed. (Both dogma and doctrine). The presentations of those dogmas and doctrines have in many cases been modified or contextualized, but that is not the same thing as what is often misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics that there is some possibility of a progressive movement which is more “modern” in quality, simply because the Church does dialogue with the modern world and incorporates (often by contrast) that understanding in her (more modern) explanations.

Anyone who expects to see a change in moral teachings shouldn’t hold his or her breath. That includes a surprising number of current and non-practicing Catholics, who announce that they’re “waiting” for the Church to “change” on homosexuality, on male priesthood, and much else.

 

[Peepers]

=/= this:

Two different dynamics there. Understanding and explanation is not the same thing as a principle. Some teachings have undergone modfication in emphasis. In addition, some things were informally “taught” or “understood” or even preached, but never codified. Other teachings were matters of open-ended belief (such as Limbo) or matters of discipline (such as Friday abstinence), rather than dogmatic or doctrinal matters.

The core teachings, however, have not changed. (Both dogma and doctrine). The presentations of those dogmas and doctrines have in many cases been modified or contextualized, but that is not the same thing as what is often misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics that there is some possibility of a progressive movement which is more “modern” in quality, simply because the Church does dialogue with the modern world and incorporates (often by contrast) that understanding in her (more modern) explanations.

Anyone who expects to see a change in moral teachings shouldn’t hold his or her breath. That includes a surprising number of current and non-practicing Catholics, who announce that they’re “waiting” for the Church to “change” on homosexuality, on male priesthood, and much else.

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?

 

[SouthernCelt]

I am a moderate, cradle Catholic. I have differed and had inner struggles with some church teachings and doctrine over the years but I stay in the church because of the real presence of the Eucharist, the sacraments and many, many other things. Catholic is who I am. I could not be anything else.

I answer this type of question this way. Catholics who disagree with parts of the church teaching stay Catholic for the same reason that people still call themselves part of their family even though they might not agree with everything family members do.

Have I agreed with everything my parents thought or did during my lifetime? No, but I love them and the family they created and I would never abandon it.

Same with being a citizen of the United States. I don’t agree with everything this country or its government does, have problems with some aspects of American society, but would never consider renouncing my citizenship.

It’s the same with the church. Just because my human nature causes me to doubt and disagree with things doesn’t mean I am going to automatically leave behind a Church that is a treasured part of who I am.
Just my two cents — God bless.

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

I’d say liberal Catholics remain in the Church for a variety of reasons. Some of the reasons may be related to relative ignorance of its teachings. For example, they may recognize the disagreements they have but not think those disagreements involve important matters, even though they do. Still other Catholics may sincerely believe in the basic dogma and regard themselves as good Catholics by doing so. Others may be making an effort to change their views and work out their differences by becoming more accepting of Church teaching. An issue for some may be they have nowhere else to go since they are unfamiliar with Protestant beliefs (or Orthodox) and what they do know, they disagree with totally. Other reasons for staying might include feeling culturally connected, family-related, as a result of habit, even in the expectation that the Church will eventually change its beliefs so that its teachings become more harmonious with their own views.

 

[St_Francis]

Would you prefer people left the Church that Christ built, or stay within the Church to continue working out their faith with fear and trembling and where they may find the fullness of His truth eventually?

What about the souls of those they lead astray?

 

[Elizabeth502]

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?

Are you referring to an affirmative, official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that declared slavery to be a moral practice? Or are you talking about other Christian sects and belief systems (our Founding Fathers were not Catholics) which rationalized/justified slavery, based on biblical tracts or secular philosophies? Or are you talking about the practice of slavery and the social acceptance of slavery, including in the early phase of our country?

Because all of those are different concepts which you have casually combined into one.

I will also just note this one forum rule, for anyone tempted to go off on a tangent here, establishing so-called equivalencies:

Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice. [implied there is discussion of the same topic of policy or practice, not a different topic of policy or practice – this is Elizabeth’s editing of the Forum Rules, but I believe that this is what is meant]
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false.
Expecting members of any Church to defend or answer for the excesses or extremism of bodies that have broken with it is a technique that has no merit and can’t be defended.
*It is our observation that discussion of such past events rarely serves a useful purpose and inevitably opens a thread to posts that violate forum rules and/or the bounds of civil discourse. So, while such threads may be useful, they raise a red flag for the Moderation staff.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What about the souls of those they lead astray?

Do you believe the Holy Spirit leads us?

I only have one problem, that is so many Catholics mix secular, politics, with spiritual, that which is Holy. We have to agree with certain ones totally, or we are ‘liberal’, ‘cafeteria’, or worse. Where does scriptures teach us we should legislate morality? Christ did not do it, nor did the Apostles. They worked on changing, converting, the hearts and minds.

Now, the few who demand to be agreed with totally, seem to overlook the teaching of the Church on forming a faith based conscience and forbidding anyone to force someone to act against that faith based conscience.

This neither states a support, or adversity, to any of the specific issues being discussed when referring to brothers and sisters as ‘liberals’ or ‘cafeteria’. It questions the interpretation of scriptures, and Church documents, that gives support to a ‘political’ view. It seems to me, that if interpretation of scriptures/Church documents specifically agreed with those who consider themselves ‘conservative’, the authoritative men of the Church, including our Pope, would clearly speak with a unified voice. Take the last election for example. Why did the Pope not clearly state which candidate should be supported by voting for them? Why did we find Bishops split, ignoring how many were on either side of the argument? Where was the ‘unity’ being espoused in these '…should ‘they’ stay in the Church" discussions?

Look at the Church’s teachings on the death penalty. Some interpret it as support and others see it as against. Which is truth?

We have Catholics calling for the excommunication of certain politicians, yet the one that sits on the seat of Peter does not clearly affirm that call. Why?

The Bible teaches for us to ‘obey our prelates’. That includes all in the ‘chain of command’.

I’m not faulting the Pope, I believe he has his reasons and it doesn’t support a single view, or forcing others to go against a faith based conscience, or trying to force people from the Church.

None of us, especially laypersons, knows the complete fullness of His truth. We learn every minute, with every breath, and then we don’t know it all…in this world. To infer that some need to leave the Church seems to say, ‘we know it all and are holier than you, get out you are not and never will be worthy.’ There is only one judge and He will judge us all.

 

[tom_c_1]

Thanks everyone for the thoughtful responses. Please know I posted this question b/c I didn’t think the author of what I read had provided a complete explanation and I truly wanted to know. It’s not my place to tell someone whether they belong in the Church or not. I just wondered what it was that kept people here. And I got some very insightful and interesting answers. Thanks.

God Bless.