Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[WingsOfEagles]

I’m more of a Conservative Catholic…perhaps, moderate in some areas. I had a friend who was very liberal, but wanted to attend the Catholic Church with me over the Baptist one she was raised in. She said she preferred the layout of the Mass and the manner in which Catholics pray and worship, even if she didn’t support many Church teachings.

 

[Rence]

Originally Posted by Rence
For example, the Catholic Church is the only one with the Trinity

Though many Christian denominations worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t know of any (other than the Catholic Churches) who teach a dogma of the Trinity. Which denominations teach about the Trinity? And the Eucharist? What about the Immaculate Conception?

Anyway, my point was that one of the reasons why liberal Catholics don’t bother to leave, because there isn’t anything out there that fits the bill. You might find it easier in another denomination, but then you’ll be missing something, it might be the Trinity, or the Eucharist, or the Immaculate Conception. It may be one thing, or more things. My point was, something will be missing. Of course, that’s not the only reason, that’s just one I threw out there.

 

[WingsOfEagles]

Though many Christian denominations worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t know of any (other than the Catholic Churches) who teach a dogma of the Trinity. Which denominations teach about the Trinity? And the Eucharist? What about the Immaculate Conception?

Anyway, my point was that one of the reasons why liberal Catholics don’t bother to leave, because there isn’t anything out there that fits the bill. You might find it easier in another denomination, but then you’ll be missing something, it might be the Trinity, or the Eucharist, or the Immaculate Conception. It may be one thing, or more things. My point was, something will be missing. Of course, that’s not the only reason, that’s just one I threw out there.

I think you’re probably on to something there. I think a lot of liberal Catholic may have trouble with certain teaching on how to lead their daily lives, but when it comes to the core set of beliefs (Trinity, Eucharist, Immaculate Conception, etc.), one couldn’t call them anything but Catholic and be accurate.

 

[St_Francis]

A liberal Catholic is not the same thing as a dissident Catholic any more than is a conservative Catholic. A dissident Catholic may be either liberal or conservative, or indeed, middle of the road. In fact, we are all dissident Catholics in that all of us are sinners and none of us fully live out our faith as we should. In addition, I would say that liberal Catholics stay in the Church because it is their Church as much as it is yours. Why do you stay in the Church? I imagine the reasons are similar.

Well, I think the reason that people use the term liberal Catholic instead of dissedent Catholic is precisely shown in yoir comment: there are various kinds of dissedent Catholics.

In the context of the original post, why don’t liberal Catholics leave the Church, it is quite clear what is meant: Catholics who dissent in a liberal way, Catholocs who think women shoild be ordained, Catholocs who think that abortion should be legal, etc

 

[St_Francis]

I think you’re probably on to something there. I think a lot of liberal Catholic may have trouble with certain teaching on how to lead their daily lives, but when it comes to the core set of beliefs (Trinity, Eucharist, Immaculate Conception, etc.), one couldn’t call them anything but Catholic and be accurate.

The demons also believe and tremble…

 

[Tsuwano]

Well, I think the reason that people use the term liberal Catholic instead of dissedent Catholic is precisely shown in yoir comment: there are various kinds of dissedent Catholics.

In the context of the original post, why don’t liberal Catholics leave the Church, it is quite clear what is meant: Catholics who dissent in a liberal way, Catholocs who think women shoild be ordained, Catholocs who think that abortion should be legal, etc

Didn’t you read TomC’s original post in which he raises the question? He did use the word “dissident” and wonders why the average “dissident” layperson doesn’t leave the Church. In the title of his post he uses the term “liberal,” thus implying that all liberals are dissident. Just as there are dissidents in the Church from every side of the political spectrum, there are different kinds of liberals and not all of them support abortion, ordained female priests and the like. It is not fair to label “liberal” thinkers in the Church as dissident any more than it is fair to label a conservative thinker who supports mandating Latin as the only language for the liturgy as dissident.

 

[excubitor]

Having personal doubts about church teaching is one thing.
Conducting a personal agenda to change the church into what you want from your church in direct opposition to the magisterium is quite another thing altogether.
Laymen are just as inclined to run a political agenda as clergy are. Many of them truly believe that they are helping the Pope to see his errors. They believe that they are doing God’s will.

However these people are deluded and proud to imagine that they are right and the Pope is wrong.
The Pope in his role as pastor and shepherd is gentle and lead’s his sheep tenderly and patiently. What concerns me though is the ruination of the soul’s of those who are weak in the faith, who are destroyed by the wolves which are allowed to run rampant in the church.

One of the pastor’s roles is to chase away the wolf and go and retrieve the scattered sheep. I don’t think that the modern Popes and Bishops have done this well if at all. If you haave read any of the material from the traditionalists then it will be quite apparent to you that many of the recent Popes have had strongly liberal tendencies themselves. So until we get a traditional Pope that enforces traditional catholic practice and belief, then we will always have problems with liberals.

I certainly don’t want to lay blame entirely at the door of the Pope/s. I believe that since Vatican 2 there has been a deep desire by the Popes to see their Bishops exercise ecclesiastical authority and actually rule the church in their diocese. Prior to Vatican 2 the church was far to centralised and virtually all administration went through Rome. That is just not sustainable any more given that the church has a billion people and is now spread across the world, not just in Europe and the West. The Pope’s are reluctant to intervene because they want their Bishops to step up to the plate and actually use their authority. But the Bishops have been generally woeful. They listen to the fickle people more than to the Pope.

When the Bishops start doing their job the liberal Catholics will recant and the wolves (dissidents) with their agendas will leave with their tails between their legs, and then we can all get back to being authentic Catholics in proper communion together.

The just man delights to see the Bishop exercise his ecclesiastical authority, but the church is full of sinners who howl down the Bishop if he get’s out of place and meddles in their parish affairs. I’ve seen it happen in my own diocese. Let’s all pray for our Bishop that he may not fear the people, but will stand up and drive the wolves out of the church.

 

[exoflare]

Though many Christian denominations worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I don’t know of any (other than the Catholic Churches) who teach a dogma of the Trinity. Which denominations teach about the Trinity?

As in all Protestant denominations, there is no real “dogma” except for whatever your personal interpretation leads you to. The closest we can even come in their case is which teachings have some general consensus of agreement. As you said, many (i.e., most) Christians worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit… so how is this supposed to be different from our Trinity?

And the Eucharist? What about the Immaculate Conception?

What about them? I never mentioned them.

 

[Rence]

As in all Protestant denominations, there is no real “dogma” except for whatever your personal interpretation leads you to. The closest we can even come in their case is which teachings have some general consensus of agreement. As you said, many (i.e., most) Christians worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit… so how is this supposed to be different from our Trinity?

It’s only one element that comprises a Church that is distinct from all others.

What about them? I never mentioned them.

But I did Again, they are elements that comprises the Church, and elements that set it aside as distinct from all others. If there was another Church to fit the bill I suspect more people would convert to those others. But in doing so, they will have to give up something they believe in. Most Catholics don’t have a problem with the core teachings. They have a problem with the “moral” laws and rules.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That is a pretty broad generalization. I believe in all of those things. I don’t agree with a few things, but I know the Pope is infallible and I pray that my wrong thinking will be changed.

I am not sure why this forum is always trying to suggest that people leave the Church.

You don’t sound like one of the people I was generalizing about. I’m talking about people who have strong disagreements with the hierarchy and simply thing the hierarchy is wrong.

 

[St_Francis]

Didn’t you read TomC’s original post in which he raises the question? He did use the word “dissident” and wonders why the average “dissident” layperson doesn’t leave the Church. In the title of his post he uses the term “liberal,” thus implying that all liberals are dissident. Just as there are dissidents in the Church from every side of the political spectrum, there are different kinds of liberals and not all of them support abortion, ordained female priests and the like. It is not fair to label “liberal” thinkers in the Church as dissident any more than it is fair to label a conservative thinker who supports mandating Latin as the only language for the liturgy as dissident.

Sorry, several days and pages later, I forgot the exact wording of the OP; however, I think he was trying to avoid what you are accusing him of, by using both words, he tried to describe the precise people he was talking about: dissidents from the liberal end of things rather than all liberals or all dissidents.

PS I don’t think that any but those ignorant of the Eastern particular Churches would postulate Latin as the sole language for all liturgies, and it is hard to complain about the dissidence of someone advocating returning to a practise which thee Church held for centuries. I am not in that group, but I certainly understand their position over that of the Nancy Pelosis of the Church.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

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?

You are still obligated to OBEY those laws or risk penalties and punishment. If you disagree with a law you can change it through voting. In the Church, you are still obligated to obey the rules, whether or not you intellectually disagree with them. Only with the Church, we don’t have voting rights.

 

[Robintrinket]

Didn’t you read TomC’s original post in which he raises the question? He did use the word “dissident” and wonders why the average “dissident” layperson doesn’t leave the Church. In the title of his post he uses the term “liberal,” thus implying that all liberals are dissident. Just as there are dissidents in the Church from every side of the political spectrum, there are different kinds of liberals and not all of them support abortion, ordained female priests and the like. It is not fair to label “liberal” thinkers in the Church as dissident any more than it is fair to label a conservative thinker who supports mandating Latin as the only language for the liturgy as dissident.

By “liberal” he obviously was talking about the people who support abortion, ordained female priests, etc. Such things are part of the liberal philosophy. Words take on meanings for a reason. Most people who claim to be liberal support abortion, feminism, etc., and that is how people come to think of “liberals” as meaning people who support these things. What would you say the word “liberal” means, and who are talking about when you say “liberal thinkers”, if not people who support female priests, abortion, etc.?

 

[Robintrinket]

I don’t think that any but those ignorant of the Eastern particular Churches would postulate Latin as the sole language for all liturgies, and it is hard to complain about the dissidence of someone advocating returning to a practise which thee Church held for centuries. I am not in that group, but I certainly understand their position over that of the Nancy Pelosis of the Church.

Yes. That is not a good comparison. The language to be used during Mass is not a matter of faith or morals, and is something that can and has been changed by the Church. The moral and doctrinal teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be changed.

 

[exoflare]

(aside from the fact you ignored my question completely…)

It’s only one element that comprises a Church that is distinct from all others.

Except that for the umpteenth time, the Trinity isn’t distinct to Catholicism. I don’t know why you choose to continue pretending that’s not the case.

But I did

Yeah, you did change the subject. I don’t see how that requires pointing out.

Again, they are elements that comprises the Church, and elements that set it aside as distinct from all others. If there was another Church to fit the bill I suspect more people would convert to those others. But in doing so, they will have to give up something they believe in. Most Catholics don’t have a problem with the core teachings. They have a problem with the “moral” laws and rules.

Lots of the moral laws and rules ARE core teachings. Anyway I’ve already entertained your little tangent long enough. The point is that the teaching of the Trinity is not exclusive to Catholicism. This is the first time I’ve seen someone go out of their way to deny such a non-controversial fact, but whatever emotional investment you may have in denying it, my only concern is at least people reading this who wouldn’t have known any better don’t get misinformed and look it up themselves. So go ahead and stick to your story if you want, I don’t really care.

 

[Tsuwano]

Sorry, several days and pages later, I forgot the exact wording of the OP; however, I think he was trying to avoid what you are accusing him of, by using both words, he tried to describe the precise people he was talking about: dissidents from the liberal end of things rather than all liberals or all dissidents.

PS I don’t think that any but those ignorant of the Eastern particular Churches would postulate Latin as the sole language for all liturgies, and it is hard to complain about the dissidence of someone advocating returning to a practise which thee Church held for centuries. I am not in that group, but I certainly understand their position over that of the Nancy Pelosis of the Church.

I hope the OP was trying to avoid equating liberal Catholics with dissidents, but it was unclear to me. If I’ve accused the OP of saying or doing something that he did not intend to say or do, then I’m more than happy to be corrected. I’m glad that you and the OP recognize that it is possible to be a liberal Catholic without being a dissident Catholic. As for your PS comment, I think there are many within the Roman Rite who definitely feel that Latin should be the sole language of the liturgy within that rite. Also, if you read my previous post again you’ll see that I was not complaining about those who wish to return to such a practice. I was pointing out that it is as ridiculous to label them dissidents because they hold a “conservative” position as it is to label others dissidents because they hold a “liberal” position. Conservative and liberal labels, because they usually lack relevance or meaning, have little to do with whether a person dissents from Church teaching. After all, John Calvin was very conservative in his theological views, and yet he was a great dissident from official Church teaching.

 

[Tsuwano]

By “liberal” he obviously was talking about the people who support abortion, ordained female priests, etc. Such things are part of the liberal philosophy. Words take on meanings for a reason. Most people who claim to be liberal support abortion, feminism, etc., and that is how people come to think of “liberals” as meaning people who support these things. What would you say the word “liberal” means, and who are talking about when you say “liberal thinkers”, if not people who support female priests, abortion, etc.?

Yes indeed, words often take on meanings for a reason, but those meanings don’t necessarily reflect reality. Sometimes they reflect ideology and emotion rather than understanding. The word “liberal,” for example, is often used as a weapon rather than as a description. You mention the word “feminism,” but you fail to acknowledge that there are aspects of the feminist movement which fall squarely within the teaching of the Church and that the dignity of women has been upheld by Church leaders. You seem to have defined feminism in a narrow manner and use it as a derogatory term rather than as a category which encompasses a variety of thinking. The same is true of the word liberal (and conservative, I might add). When I talk about liberal thinkers, I am talking about Popes John and Paul, Pope John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger, presently Pope Benedict XVI. I am talking about the bishops and theologians who instituted the Second Vatican Council and brought the Church into the modern world. Which of these people supports female ordination or abortion?

 

[St_Francis]

I hope the OP was trying to avoid equating liberal Catholics with dissidents, but it was unclear to me. If I’ve accused the OP of saying or doing something that he did not intend to say or do, then I’m more than happy to be corrected. I’m glad that you and the OP recognize that it is possible to be a liberal Catholic without being a dissident Catholic. As for your PS comment, I think there are many within the Roman Rite who definitely feel that Latin should be the sole language of the liturgy within that rite. Also, if you read my previous post again you’ll see that I was not complaining about those who wish to return to such a practice. I was pointing out that it is as ridiculous to label them dissidents because they hold a “conservative” position as it is to label others dissidents because they hold a “liberal” position. Conservative and liberal labels, because they usually lack relevance or meaning, have little to do with whether a person dissents from Church teaching. After all, John Calvin was very conservative in his theological views, and yet he was a great dissident from official Church teaching.

Yes indeed, words often take on meanings for a reason, but those meanings don’t necessarily reflect reality. Sometimes they reflect ideology and emotion rather than understanding. The word “liberal,” for example, is often used as a weapon rather than as a description. You mention the word “feminism,” but you fail to acknowledge that there are aspects of the feminist movement which fall squarely within the teaching of the Church and that the dignity of women has been upheld by Church leaders. You seem to have defined feminism in a narrow manner and use it as a derogatory term rather than as a category which encompasses a variety of thinking. The same is true of the word liberal (and conservative, I might add). When I talk about liberal thinkers, I am talking about Popes John and Paul, Pope John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger, presently Pope Benedict XVI. I am talking about the bishops and theologians who instituted the Second Vatican Council and brought the Church into the modern world. Which of these people supports female ordination or abortion?

Tswano,
You seem to have trou le understanding that words can have seveal meanings, and that we derive the meaning intended by the context in which they are used. The OP, by mentioning liberals, dissidents, and leaving the Church, clarified which meaning of the word liberal he meant. I also stated outright what I meant and what I didn’t mean, and included that a person cojld be an orthdox Catholic and a political liberal in many areas.

Feminiism, of the sortthat a liberal kind of heterodox dissident might support, is an odious set of ideas that has reduced a woman’s position and laid waste to society and is based on the anti-Catholic so-called Enlightenment thinkkng, is quite clearly what the poster meant.

 

[CathModerate]

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.

You hit the nail on the head. Too bad many “perfect catholics” dont get it. Also, would one kick a gay person out of their family if they were gay or even had a gay partner? Would the gay person leave his family if they disagreed with him? Maybe if they hated him he would have no choice…and sadly it seems people wanna keep gays with partners out of the church.

 

[CathModerate]

Liberal Catholics are not necessarily dissidents at all. In fact, many "Liberals are really very conservative, wanting to get the Church back to its ORIGINAL practices, and stop all of the stuff that was added on between the 8th and 15th centuries.

If nothing changed in the church, and its liturgies, we would not have church buildings at all, we would meet for Mass at each others homes. Priests would not be full-time clergy, they would have a “day job” and be Priests (or Bishops) in addition to whatever they did in order to support their families.

There would be no “temples” at all (meaning huge, and hugely expensive churches), the Church would essentially be a home based religion.

Virtually ALL clergy would be married, just as Jesus himself chose only married men to be his apostles.

Clergy would be just another member of the community, not regarded as some kind of a “demi-God”, who has to be kowtowed to and treated as something ultra special. They would have one voice in the running of the local church, but only one voice and that voice would carry no more weight than any other, except in matters of direct faith and morals…

So, what you might consider to be very liberal positions, are, in actuality, very CONSERVATIVE positions.

There is absolutely no reason on earth why ANYONE, regardless of being either liberal or conservative, should be even thought of as someone to leave the church. Who are you, or anyone else, to sit in judgment of others?

Because they are perfect and know practicing gays and even people who favor abortion shouldnt even be sitting in a pew