Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Peepers]

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:

Thank you for your questions. I am just trying to understand all of this. It is challenging to sift through the accumulation of thousands of years of theological tradition. I mentioned the historic account of Gregory I, not to be controversial, but to point out my confusion, really. On the one hand, people say that the moral doctrine is immutable. I believe that the Church clearly condemns slavery in its moral doctrine today. Am I correct on that? Then when I look at the historic record, I see a well respected pope who owned a slave. Given the reputation of Gregory I, I believe that he was doing what he believed to be morally correct, at that time. My hope was to clarify, not to obfuscate or to cause controversy. After all, this thread is on the topic, at least tangentially, to whether the moral doctrine of the Church changes in time, or not.

 

[Rence]

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.

For some, it’s a habit. They were born and raised Catholic.

For others, they may not agree with some things the Church teaches, but they believe in enough such that there is no where else to go that would fit the bill. For example, the Catholic Church is the only one with the Trinity, and the Eucharist. Another religion may be less legalistic and have less pomp and circumstance, but then they wouldn’t have the Trinity or the Eucharist. So why leave, unless you go somewhere better?

People who don’t agree with the Church don’t all want anarchy and mayhem, or a free-for-all. Some of them just don’t agree with particular teachings. That doesn’t mean they are immoral or evil, it just means they don’t agree with every little thing the Church teachings. Come on, there are 3000+ pages of rules and regulations. I haven’t met anyone in my life (in real life) that agrees with everything the Church teaches. And I’m kind of skeptical when I read about how someone blindly accepts every single thing the church teaches online. Even the most “traditional” just “don’t think about” what they don’t agree with and move on with their lives concentrating on what they do agree with. I think that’s how everyone is actually…

And while you (correct me if I’m misinterpreting your thoughts) would rather a dissident Catholic just leave the Church…if they do leave, there will be a whole set of other people complaining that they did leave. So either way, unless one is a traditional conservative Catholic, someone is going to complain about something. So really, why should they leave?

 

[tom_c_1]

Pence

I’m sure you weren’t alone in interpreting my original question that way. I posted a second time to at least attempt to clarify that I was not trying to argue that they should leave the Church or that I wish they would just leave. My purpose was to try to get a complete explanation b/c I felt the one I had read did not fully address the issue.

You and others provided me with some good answers/reasons and I thank you for that.

God Bless.

 

[BrushedByAngels]

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.

Excellent analogy

 

[Rence]

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.

I agree with BrushedbyAngels. Excellent analogy. But you also brought up a good point about family. Some people would feel separated, or otherwise different, from their families, who are Catholic as well. That’s why some religions, such as Jehovah Witnesses, get compliance by threatening their members with “being disfellowshipped” if they’re not in compliance with teachings of the JW faith or even by not obeying an elder – which results in them being shunned by all their friends and families. While Catholics do not practice “shunning” or “disfellowshipping”, it may feel that way to a Catholic who leaves their Catholic family behind.

All those things considered (family, the Trinity, the Eucharist, being born Catholic, being among other Catholics), those are some reasons, among many, why liberal Catholics stay in the Church instead of leaving.

 

[Peepers]

Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*…

I wonder if someone would elaborate on this policy. I am very interested in the topic of change in the Church for a number of reasons. On the one hand, Benedict XVI is clear that relativism is seen as a principal threat to the moral fabric of society and the understanding of the Church’s teachings. Jphn Paul II has said similar things. In an effort to understand this topic, I have been digging into the history of the Church, especially statements on morality made by previous popes. My readings are far from complete, so I only have an initial impression. Yet, it becomes clearer with time that moral relativism has been embraced by the Church for many centuries, and on a variety of topics. Relativistic arguments are advanced as justification for the Church’s history. The fact that Church teachings do change on morality is a clear example or moral relativism in practice over time. This is all pretty confusing to me at present. I guess the conclusion I am coming to is that a radical change in Church doctrine which began with John Paul II is being continued under Benedict XVI. Previous doctrine of the Church has slowly embraced change in moral teaching as a result of interaction with secular change, but Benedict sees this as a potential danger. Is my understanding correct?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously*…

I wonder if someone would elaborate on this policy. I am very interested in the topic of change in the Church for a number of reasons.

This is something I’ve posted in another thread and it may be useful to understand dogma and changes within the Church.
…

I would advocate that whenever theological deliberations are discussed as it pertains to dogma, doctrine and discipline, there are level of theology certainty (corroborated in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) *that need to be ascribed to them, which are as follows:

De fide**:** Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered infallible revelation.

Fides ecclesiastica: Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium, considered infallible revelation.

Sententia fidei proxima: Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the Magisterium.

Theologica certa: Church teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation.

Sententia communis: Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research.

Sententia probabilis: Teachings with low degree of certainty.

Opinio tolerate: Opinions tolerated within the Catholic Church, such as pious legends.

Only de fide and fides ecclesiastica statements are infallible. As long as these do not change, there isn’t any theological quandrary for the Church. If you are interested in the definitive list of Catholic dogmas (de fide and fides ecclesiastica) I recommend Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Lugwig Ott. It shows the sources in Scripture, Tradition and Papal/Council decrees. After reading this book, I’ve come to the conclusion no infalliable dogmas have changed despite many assertions to the contrary by Church critics.

Infallible teachings mandate full assent of faithful and dissent is not permitted. Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect but dissent (e.g. debate) on specific points on a matter of faith or morals is possible because the doctrine is not necessarily free from error. However, only elements* not essential* to salvation can there be permissible dissent and then* only* when there is basis within Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium and not merely prevalent opinion or personal interpretation.

In other words, dissent is possible if…

• There is a basis to do so within Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium
• It pertains to matters not related to salvation
• It is not merely due to popular opinion or ideology outside the Church
• It is not on Church Dogma (which is infallible)

Hence, if you intend offer a dissenting opinion on non-salvation points of matter, you will need to back it up within the desposit of Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium (citing documents with a nihil obstat and imprimatur; not third party documents or websites) and fulfill the above requirements. Remember, only teaching points at the theologica certa, sententia communis and sententia probabilis theological levels can, in theory, be debated.

De fide and fides ecclesiastica statements are not changeable and are deemed infallible. Sententia fidei proxima statements are theoretically changeable in light of better understanding as they are not yet deemed infallible but are still highly regarded. Theologica certa, sententia communis and sententia probabilis statements are changeable and likely have undergone some refinenment over time. You need to consider the theological level/certainty of the doctrine in any discussion.

 

[Peepers]

This is something I’ve posted in another thread and it may be useful to understand dogma and changes within the Church.
…

I would advocate that whenever theological deliberations are discussed as it pertains to dogma, doctrine and discipline, there are level of theology certainty (corroborated in *Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma) *that need to be ascribed to them, which are as follows:

De fide**:** Divine revelations with the highest degree of certainty, considered infallible revelation.

Fides ecclesiastica: Church teachings, which have been definitively decided on by the Magisterium, considered infallible revelation.

Sententia fidei proxima: Church teachings, which are generally accepted as divine revelation but not defined as such by the Magisterium.

Theologica certa: Church teachings without final approval but clearly deduced from revelation.

Sententia communis: Teachings which are popular but within the free range of theological research.

Sententia probabilis: Teachings with low degree of certainty.

Opinio tolerate: Opinions tolerated within the Catholic Church, such as pious legends.

Only de fide and fides ecclesiastica statements are infallible. As long as these do not change, there isn’t any theological quandrary for the Church. If you are interested in the definitive list of Catholic dogmas (de fide and fides ecclesiastica) I recommend Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Lugwig Ott. It shows the sources in Scripture, Tradition and Papal/Council decrees. After reading this book, I’ve come to the conclusion no infalliable dogmas have changed despite many assertions to the contrary by Church critics.

Infallible teachings mandate full assent of faithful and dissent is not permitted. Non-infallible teachings require the religious submission of will and intellect but dissent (e.g. debate) on specific points on a matter of faith or morals is possible because the doctrine is not necessarily free from error. However, only elements* not essential* to salvation can there be permissible dissent and then* only* when there is basis within Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium and not merely prevalent opinion or personal interpretation.

In other words, dissent is possible if…

• There is a basis to do so within Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium
• It pertains to matters not related to salvation
• It is not merely due to popular opinion or ideology outside the Church
• It is not on Church Dogma (which is infallible)

Hence, if you intend offer a dissenting opinion on non-salvation points of matter, you will need to back it up within the desposit of Tradition, Scripture and the Magisterium (citing documents with a nihil obstat and imprimatur; not third party documents or websites) and fulfill the above requirements. Remember, only teaching points at the theologica certa, sententia communis and sententia probabilis theological levels can, in theory, be debated.

De fide and fides ecclesiastica statements are not changeable and are deemed infallible. Sententia fidei proxima statements are theoretically changeable in light of better understanding as they are not yet deemed infallible but are still highly regarded. Theologica certa, sententia communis and sententia probabilis statements are changeable and likely have undergone some refinenment over time. You need to consider the theological level/certainty of the doctrine in any discussion.

Thanks! I will check it out.

 

[CathModerate]

As far as I am concerned the only opinion not up for debate and what makes one a catholic or not is the belief in and reverence for the Holy Eucharist. Boil it down to that and just agree to disagree on everything else.

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

As far as I am concerned the only opinion not up for debate and what makes one a catholic or not is the belief in and reverence for the Holy Eucharist. Boil it down to that and just agree to disagree on everything else.

It can be argued that matters of faith are not opinion but divine revelation and, therefore, is not up to debate.

 

[CathModerate]

We have our own opinions whether catholic or not. Should I leave America because even thiugh Im a citizen I refute and disagree with many of its laws?

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

We have our own opinions whether catholic or not. Should I leave America because even thiugh Im a citizen I refute and disagree with many of its laws?

Well, as long as you obey United States laws, everything is fine. Otherwise you might find yourself incarcerated.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We have our own opinions whether catholic or not. Should I leave America because even thiugh Im a citizen I refute and disagree with many of its laws?

No. However, if you do not obey those laws – no matter how much you disagree with them – the privileges of US citizenship will be temporarily frozen. (You know, those privileges such as freedom, the right to vote, hold a job, etc. ) So you will jeopardize and fracture your relationship with your country if you move from “disagreement” to open defiance.

Secondly, you may find yourself in serious trouble if you assist another citizen who disobeys a law (commits a crime), by aiding and abetting, by harboring a fugitive, or by otherwise engaging in a conspiracy with this person, against the law. And if you misinform (deliberately or through ignorance) a fellow citizen, that ‘such-and-such a law needn’t be obeyed if you disagree with it,’ then such a misinformed person would be imperiled as well. (Not to mention, he or she could come after you with a civil lawsuit later, for leading him or her astray.)

It all depends how seriously you value your status as a citizen, as to the degree of disagreement you choose to engage in. (Intellectual, practical, or both.)

 

[Elizabeth502]

As far as I am concerned the only opinion not up for debate and what makes one a catholic or not is the belief in and reverence for the Holy Eucharist. Boil it down to that and just agree to disagree on everything else.

Not really. There are teeny tiny matters such as the other sacraments, such as what constitutes sin or not (and thus allows us or not allows to participate in that Eucharist legitimately), such as the Four Last Things, which will evaluate whether we have done more than just “revere the Eucharist.” Etc.

 

[St_Francis]

Do you believe the Holy Spirit leads us?

I don’t think the Holy Spirit leads us against the Church.

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.

Well, you have made a lot points very quickly… First, let me say that I consider a liberal Catholic to be one who disagrees with the perennial teachings of the Church, who believes, for example, that the use of artificial forms of birth control in order to prevent conception is all right. The heterodox opinions of these people often align with what is currently liberal in the US today, but I have known really devout, orthodox Catholics who have been quite politically liberal, so I do not think they are necessarily synonymous…

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.

There are people who hold certain political opinions and believe them to be connected with their religious beliefs… and they can be found on both sides of the political fence. I have been criticized as a bad Catholic for disagreeing with people wanting to protest a place where I guess the military has nuclear bombs. And I have seen people criticized for wanting to protest there. So I agree with you that there is a problem there.

However, there are those who take liberties with the idea that people are to act according to their conscience. The conscience is to be well-formed, ie, in line with Church teaching. If a person disagrees with the Church on a particular point, he doesn’t get a free pass because that’s according to his conscience; he is supposed to pray and study in humility in order to form his conscience according to the teachings of the Church. I see this error more with people who are politically liberal–but I see other faults on the politically consefvative side.

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?

Unfortunately we have still some bishops whose opinions are heterodox, bishops who believe and act contrary to the teachings of the Church. And we have developed an odd dependence on an extra-hierarchical national group of bishops in the USCCB. Because they are trying to create some sort of unity on the national level, and because they diverge so greatly in their views, we have statements whic reflect more the difficulties in consensus writing when people disagree than good solid Catholic teaching.

And of course, the Church tries to guide the laity, but not impose strictures like vote for Candidate X.

Continued below…

 

[St_Francis]

…Continued from above

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

The Church throughout Her history has always permitted the death penalty. The current teaching is a very nuanced one based on certain specific assumptions; however, the ultimate position a nation takes is a prudential one rather than theological.

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 Bishop of Rome does not interfere with the running of individual dioceses.

Remember too that the Pope is the Pope over all the world. The US is a small part of His care, and what he says must be tempered by his responsibility not only for the rest of the world but also for the issue in time, which is why the Church sometimes seems slow to respond.

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

I’m not sure which verse in the Bible you are referring to, but we are all, including the prelates, to obey the Church.

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.

It is always difficult to understand precisely why someone like the Pope makes some of the decisions he does, but remeber that just because he does not act doesn’t mean that all is ok. As we saw with the scandals, failure to condemn does not mean approval, or even that condemnation is not warranted.

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.

The original poster clarified his question after I posted. I was thinking about heterodox priests and religious, high-profile “liberal” Catholics or very strong dissidents not your average person in the pew who may or may not know or fully understand his position, esp if his position has been bolstered by those about whom I was writing.

I think about some young person, not well-catechized, who hears Senator Pelosi mangle St Thomas Aquinas, misstate the historical teaching of the Church, and obfuscate the issue altogther in her attempt to rationalize her support for abortion. The young person hears this, combined with the general anti-Catholic atmosphere of a university and the so-called “concern” of the political liberals for the plight of a woman who wants to avoid the consequences of a decision she made by hiring someone to kill her unborn child, and thinks that supporting abortion may be justifiable in Catholic thinking.

So… yes, I think that the Church should be disciplinary against the people about whom I was talking, if thy do not take themselves out of the Church with which they so very much disagree. As to the average Catholic in the pew, our priests should be teaching what they need to learn, so as to fulfill Christ’s command to go out and teach all nations.

 

[mcrow]

I have trouble understanding how Catholics can be liberal but don’t think they should leave the church.

Liberals seem OK with abortion,gay relations,female clergy, and many liberal groups hate religion and in particular the Catholic Church. The list goes on.

I think that many liberal catholics really identify that way because of they believe in the practice of taking care of those that need it. However, this is wrongly attributed to being a liberal concept when all political parties have and do support social programs.

I don;t understand how a true liberal can be a Catholic and I suspect most liberal Catholics are probably more left leaning centrists.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church throughout Her history has always permitted the death penalty. The current teaching is a very nuanced one based on certain specific assumptions; however, the ultimate position a nation takes is a prudential one rather than theological.

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

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

The Bishop of Rome does not interfere with the running of individual dioceses.

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

Remember too that the Pope is the Pope over all the world. The US is a small part of His care, and what he says must be tempered by his responsibility not only for the rest of the world but also for the issue in time, which is why the Church sometimes seems slow to respond.

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

I’m not sure which verse in the Bible you are referring to, but we are all, including the prelates, to obey the Church.

**
Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Heb 13:18 Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things. **

And the Church is? It’s from the Pope down the hierarchy to the layperson, one Church, all of one mind and one judgment.

It is always difficult to understand precisely why someone like the Pope makes some of the decisions he does, but remeber that just because he does not act doesn’t mean that all is ok. As we saw with the scandals, failure to condemn does not mean approval, or even that condemnation is not warranted.

When the Pope does not act, neither argument can claim correctness, or that their view is ‘ok’…

The original poster clarified his question after I posted. I was thinking about heterodox priests and religious, high-profile “liberal” Catholics or very strong dissidents not your average person in the pew who may or may not know or fully understand his position, esp if his position has been bolstered by those about whom I was writing.

I think about some young person, not well-catechized, who hears Senator Pelosi mangle St Thomas Aquinas, misstate the historical teaching of the Church, and obfuscate the issue altogther in her attempt to rationalize her support for abortion. The young person hears this, combined with the general anti-Catholic atmosphere of a university and the so-called “concern” of the political liberals for the plight of a woman who wants to avoid the consequences of a decision she made by hiring someone to kill her unborn child, and thinks that supporting abortion may be justifiable in Catholic thinking.

So… yes, I think that the Church should be disciplinary against the people about whom I was talking, if thy do not take themselves out of the Church with which they so very much disagree. As to the average Catholic in the pew, our priests should be teaching what they need to learn, so as to fulfill Christ’s command to go out and teach all nations.

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

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

 

[markomalley]

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.

Liberal Catholics probably wish traditional, orthodox Catholics would leave the Church also.

 

[CathModerate]

Well, as long as you obey United States laws, everything is fine. Otherwise you might find yourself incarcerated.

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

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