Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Beth_Cecilia]

Well, the idea that you should keep your religion to yourself, because it has no application in the real world is part of liberal philosophy. This is the attitude of liberal Catholic politicians who support abortion. If you really believe something, it flows over into every aspect of your life. Your beliefs on what government should be like will be influenced by your religion and understanding of morality.

I don’t think that anyone would support something such as mandating church attendance, not because everyone wishes to “keep their morality and their politics separate”, but because it would obviously be very impractical, and do more harm than good.

You kind of make my point, here. There are a lot of laws that would do more harm than good, and that is a way to judge whether or not we should support them. I chose the example of mandated Church attendance, because it is easy. Abortion, likewise but on the other end, should be easy. Without laws prohibiting abortion, children die. In between there are a lot of other issues. The Church holds a certain (true) opinion which binds its people to that belief. Outside the Church people are not bound by that authority and we have to weigh whether a given law- which reflects morality as law should- does more harm or more good. Should condoms be illegal? Divorce? Homosexual “marriage” or even sodomy? This is where it gets more difficult.

In any event, it is a different idea of what liberalism entails- the one here given- than the one you in your last post. The idea that my morality “does not have real world application” is very different from the idea that there is a set of issues on which one must have certain specific beliefs. I’d argue that both are false; they are certainly different.

For what it is worth, I did not say that morality does not have a place in the world- obviously it does. Laws must be informed by morality- as I believe I said. The question then is what to do when a society does not share the same morality. Do I insist that my morality be imposed universally? I cannot accept that it be ignore in law. What is my moral obligation? It is a question often asked, and with varying opinions. The only specific answer that I know of from the Church is that there are certain issues which we must take certain political positions on- like abortion and euthanasia.

We get a lot of advice on a lot of other issues- both conservative issues and liberal issues but there is leeway for disagreement with specific laws.

 

[Shogun]

Such a question borders on self righteousness and reminds me of the Pharasee rebuked by Jesus in the Book of Luke. One thing the community of Catholics has in common is that we are all sinners. We are responsible for two relationships, the one with God and the one with the Church, with God always taking priority. We cannot begin to know the relationship these so called liberals have with God, and frankly it is not our business. If you are concerned with their souls then pray for them, as I hope they also pray for yours.

His servant

 

[cmhmd]

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. <<

Interesting, especially as I am new here. I have always thought exactly the opposite: The Church is so in favor of social justice. anti-poverty, pro-union, pro-labor, pro-health care for all, etc., that I have wondered how conservatives continue to stay in, when there are so many evangelical churches out there that agree with them on all issues including those sexual and reproductive.

And, of course, your obverse point is true as well, but I was taught by my Nuns that the central message of Christ was social justice (“Whatsoever you do…”), and not “every man for himself,” as seems the current conservative ethos.

I think the non-American Catholics understand that far better than we Americans, so this may change, in our lifetimes, as our minority in the Church shrinks further every year.

(BTW, nobody “favors” abortion.)

 

[MontChevalier]

Hail,

I remember another poster once said that the Catholic Church should excommunicate all Catholic liberals.

What are some thoughts on that?

-MontChevalier

 

[Krajewskit]

Why do conservative Catholics stay in the Church?

 

[ILikeOrigen]

I believe that I am the type of Catholic to which you are referring; I am politically and socially liberal but I am also a recent convert into the Catholic Church. To me, my spiritual and political views are very different things and thus being liberal does not mean that I am not also fully devoted to G_d and His church.

I believe in the doctrines of the church – Christ died for my sins, the holiness of the Trinity, the consecration of the host. I can say the Nicene and Apostles’ Creeds without doubt. I attend Mass weekly. I feel that becoming Catholic is the best decision I could have ever made and I look forward to furthering my knowledge of G_d and the Church. I want to raise my family in a Catholic home, with Catholic morals. Many of the post here talk about being liberal as though it means I must have doubts about the sanctity of the Church or want to leave the bosom of Christ but neither of these is true. I don’t sit around waiting for the Church to change its moral teachings –in fact, if did I would likely lose trust in the Church as a moral center.

But I could never vote or support laws that I feel abridge human rights; I can’t in good moral conscience support laws that ban a group of Americans from the same civil rights as their fellows because of their sexual orientation. I believe the Church has every right to tell their congregations that homosexuality is a sin – but the government does not have the rights to stop their citizens from forming civil unions. For me this is not a question of morality (for I follow Church belief) but of legal equality. People who are gay can accept their actions as sinful or not (that is a spiritual question they must deal with personally) but our government cannot dictate the private lives of citizens.

I have studied government and history and I know well the potential dangers of a too intrusive governmental system. I feel that it would be the greatest crime if I was to support limitations of human rights because a party is pandering to my religious views. The Church and state are two very different entities; as a religious organization, it is the Church’s moral duty to try and lead her people from sin and immorality but the government should not try to take on that role. The government should exist to provide for the common welfare and common defense.

So finally, I will reiterate a point I find most precious. Being liberal does not mean that you have no moral center; being liberal does not mean that a person supports every law the Catholic Church does not. Believe it or not, socialism and political liberalism has flourished in Europe even when the population is mainly Catholic – in fact, it is the Church’s role in providing welfare which helped further socialist politics. The last two Popes came from countries with extensive welfare systems (socialist systems). In the US, people like to paint liberal or conservative believes with huge generalizations which are often very wrong. Next time you meet someone at Mass who does not believe in the same things you do, ask them why. I’ll bet you’ll be in for a surprise.

 

[caoindealbhan]

Dear Folks,

              I would label myself a liberal Catholic.  I stay in the Church, because I find that as my organized religion of origin, it has a lot to offer.  I have 4 children, and until they enter high school, I insist that they attend Mass and understand that there is a being greater than themselves. Also, the music, liturgy, and decorations are very beautiful. When they reach high school, they all start to question the mean-spiritedness of the Church.  I explain that minority groups(of all kinds) have always been hard for the Church to welcome and love.  Being a thinking person I explain that we start with the basic ideals of the Church, but then we must expand the umbrella of love, that the Church has trouble opening.  My wife and I explain that there is nothing that will ever stop us from loving our children.  Teen pregnancy is not suggested, but if it occurs, then we are here to help. Although we don't endorse "forced" marriage.  Marriage is for 2 people who love each other, not bookends for offspring. If you discover you are gay, we will help you to understand how to live that lifestyle in a responsible way.  Abortion we have trouble accepting, but if one of our children did have one, we would help them in their grieving process.

                And yes, I guess, I will always harbor a dream that the Church will enter the 21st Century with us.  We should leave fear behind (it only generates name-calling) and let everyone know that there is nothing that can separate them from the love of their immortal parent, God.

                 Sometimes the children ask, why I don't leave the Church if I don't believe everything?  I tell them, that the Church has much to offer a "developing" mind, but has trouble accepting an "adult" mind. It is not very different from a clinging parent who can't accept that a child has become a thinking and rational adult. That doesn't mean we abandon a group that we love.  We hope, pray, and love until the end. And even if we die and they haven't changed, our undying love for the Church is seen by our Father in Heaven.  After all, the Church is run mostly by very lonely old men, and they need all our love and understanding.

                                A loving step-father

 

[guanophore]

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.

For me it is not a matter of wanting to push anyone out, but to get people to recognize that they have already departed from Catholicity. To me it seems disingenuous to claim you represent something that you don’t. It is a very bad witness to the One Faith when people go around claiming to espouse it and deliberately and willfully rebel against it.

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.

I agree, but then if you check the polls, the majority of American Catholics don’t actually believe in the Real Presence.

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?

It is a scandal, specially designed by the evil one to strike the shepherd so the sheep will scatter. But this reasoning is like saying that, because Judas betrayed Jesus, we should all leave Jesus.

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.

Amen!

My concern is that there are many that are receiving who are not in a state of grace, and are eating and drinking condemnation upon themselves.

 

[grantleerichard]

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.

Thy Kingdom Come!
Truth is truth. If it is wrong in the light of what Christ taught, then it is wrong for everyone. God’s laws (divine and natural) are authoritative over all of creation whether one believes it or not. Therefore, yes, you have the responsibility to tell someone that their beliefs are wrong. At the least, you can never agree with someone that their beliefs are okay for them merely because they want to believe them. Christan morals are good for everyone, objectively. If that were not the case then they would only be subjectively true. We must be ambassadors of the truth. Were we bring the truth, even if people disregard or deny it, we bring God, for God is truth. Relativism should have no place in anyones life.

And, just so you know, I am not perfect. There are some things which I am not fully in line with the Church on, but on the major things – abortion and such – you must be. I will continue, with the help of the Holy Spirit, to see the truth and embrace it. I pray that you do as well. Don’t wait till the pearly gates to deal with your beliefs. Once you are there, I’m sure will wish you hadn’t. Once you are born into eternity, it’s to late. Become the saint God created you to be today, and let the truth set you free. He has made it so easy for us to find the truth! We only have to look to the Catholic Church. It’s such a gift. God bless!

 

[Robintrinket]

How easy it must be so set people aside when they fit so neatly into artificial boxes. You ascribe the title liberal to those who support these things.

The thing about your two opposing philosophies is that you are conflating them with an issue list. That is an odd way to define the terms. I don’t have to pretend anything. To you the word liberal means, apparently, supports xyz issue list- which I presume to be the democratic platform. To me the word mean something else entirely. Neither usage is the one which Pope Pius (IX?) used when he condemned liberals.

Liberals support a lot of things. Whether you believe it of not, abortion is not high on the list for many. It is not on the list at all for others. Self-describing liberals are not so predictable as you would like.

The term “complete liberal” does not make sense except in your bizarre and yet unclarified definition of a liberal who hold certain specific views on certain specific issues. If you want to talk about dissenters, talk about dissenters. It does not have to be political. There are just as many conservative dissenters are there are liberal ones. The Catholic Church defies political categorization.

Whether or not you support all of what liberals tend to support, all you have to do is listen to liberals to know what they tend to support. It is obvious to any one.

 

[Robintrinket]

Interesting, especially as I am new here. I have always thought exactly the opposite: The Church is so in favor of social justice. anti-poverty, pro-union, pro-labor, pro-health care for all, etc., that I have wondered how conservatives continue to stay in, when there are so many evangelical churches out there that agree with them on all issues including those sexual and reproductive.

  Everyone wants "social justice"; where the liberals and conservatives disagree is on what "social justice" is.  It is not just whatever the liberals say it is.  As far as "anti-poverty", liberalism creates more poverty.  The more liberal a state's economic policies are, the more unemployment and poverty the state has.

  As for "pro-union", you have to remember that a union is a two-edged sword.  It can help protect a worker if there are not laws available to do so, but in some states unions have gone too far the other way and destroyed the economies of those states by their demands.  I'm for a worker getting a just wage-- but does that mean cadilac health care plans, and working twenty years and getting paid for twenty years the same amount?  The Catechism, in fact, number 2435 says, "Recourse to a strike is morally legitimate when it cannot be avoided, or at least when it is necessary to obtain a proportional benefit.  It becomes morally unacceptable when accompanied by violence, or when objectives are included that are not directly related to working conditions or are contrary to the common good."  It would seem to me that in those states the unions are acting against the common good.  Another issue is states that force people to join unions.  If unions are such a great thing, why do people have to be required to join them?  Shouldn't people just be able to join them on their own if they want to?

  By "health care for all" I suppose you mean the push for government health care.  Conservatives would argue that this will not increase but decrease access to health care, and diminish the quality of health care.  Nothing the government runs works very well.

 

[sedonaman]

… You can’t really say that they stay for reasons of influence or power. So what is it?

Thanks.

This is an excellent question that has had me wondering for years. It is like my going into the local Chevy dealer and demanding he sell me a Ford … all the while there is a Ford dealer down the street. Wouldn’t it be easier just to go to the Ford dealer than to shovel sand against the tide, so to speak?

The only answer I have come up with [and it is a weak one] is that there are certain Myers-Briggs personality types that crave constant change. See politicaltypes.com/content/view/24/56.

To accomplish this, these people are practicing what I call the “Gospel in Reverse”. Jesus commissioned his first apostles to “go into the world and preach the Gospel, teaching what I have taught you.” He did not commission them to “go into the world, find out what the current liberal ideas are and bring them back and incorporate them into my church.”

 

[themeginthemoon]

Umm… what is a ‘liberal’? In many ways, I might be considered liberal, I’m not even sure anymore because people love to throw around these terms like they are absolutes. I am against abortion, but that’s not the defining point for so-called liberals…

People shouldn’t be presumed to have to ‘leave the church’, even if they are giving a ‘bad’ face to Catholicism. You get excommunicated for grave things, not because of your political leanings.

And then, what if a so-called liberal isn’t even liberal from a political standpoint?

I don’t buy into conservative, liberal, or tea-party BS… I am my own person, I don’t claim any political affiliation. Everyone is just out to slit the next person’s throat, it seems. I’m very against that. I think we need to stop pigeon holing each other, people are too complex for that!

I don’t like the connotation that people who disagree with the ‘status quo’ should be booted from the church. You don’t know what is truly in these peoples’ hearts, and you are expected to treat them with the same charity as the next person.

 

[peter_banks]

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?

Slavery has ALWAYS been morally wrong. The Bible does not say slavery is okay. What it DOES say is that, paraphrasing, if you are a slave, be a good slave. This encompasses a great deal but most importantly: love your enemies as you love yourself; do unto others as you would have them do to you, etc, etc.
The CHURCH has never taught that slavery was a moral good.
Thanks,
Peter

 

[sedonaman]

…
I don’t like the connotation that people who disagree with the ‘status quo’ should be booted from the church.

A few years ago, the bishop of the diocese of Nebraska excommunicated everyone in his flock who had anything to do with Call to Action, a liberal group that “disagreed with the status quo” on some critical church teachings. The Vatican backed him up. catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0606995.htm

So, would you agree with this decision? Why or why not?

You don’t know what is truly in these peoples’ hearts, and you are expected to treat them with the same charity as the next person.

Charity does not require us to accept any and all ideas no matter how outlandish. There is nothing wrong with condemning a bad idea. All the good intentions in its advocates’ hearts will not mitigate the disaster its implementation would cause.

 

[peter_banks]

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.

Okay, however, life is a whole and is not separate compartments. Our spiritual life should direct the rest of our life i.e. secular life, political life, etc. ALL facets of ones life must be directed by the spiritual

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.

I think we must be careful with this line of thinking because in class I “demand” that the students agree with the truth that 1+1=2. There is no other truth that is acceptable. Do you understand? In matters of faith and morals the Pope and the Bishops who are with him speak infallibly. There is only TRUTH. We can choose to say that 1+1=3, but it’s wrong; it’s not the truth. God does demand of us to follow the TRUTH. However, we are free to choose not to. That choice does not however change the TRUTH.

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?

The Pope and Bishops have spoken by giving us guidelines on how we should vote. The unity comes in we, as members of the same family, the Church, being able to choose who to vote for by using the guidelines set before us and then using our hopefully well formed minds directed by the faith to make correct, well informed choices. If it were a matter of spiritual life or death, the Holy Father and the Bishops who are with him would definitely give a specific answer.

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’s teaching on the death penalty is quite simple: it’s morally wrong period. However, the state has the right to put someone to death if there is no other way. It still doesn’t make it morally right.

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.

The Holy Father doesn’t support a single view? But he does. He supports the view of accepting the TRUTH—Jesus Christ.
Yes we must be obedient to those who God has allowed to be in charge of us. However, it doesn’t mean that we blindly are obedient to them. And sometimes, we must be disobedient because obedience to God comes first.

Some people probably should leave the Church. Jesus says, paraphrasing, that if those in town don’t accept you and the truth, shake the dust off of your feet and leave that town and woe unto them.

Thank you,
Peter

 

[sedonaman]

…
I think we must be careful with this line of thinking because in class I “demand” that the students agree with the truth that 1+1=2. There is no other truth that is acceptable. Do you understand? In matters of faith and morals the Pope and the Bishops who are with him speak infallibly. There is only TRUTH. We can choose to say that 1+1=3, but it’s wrong; it’s not the truth. God does demand of us to follow the TRUTH. However, we are free to choose not to. That choice does not however change the TRUTH…
Thank you,
Peter

What you are saying here is that 1+1=2 is the product of right reason; 1+1=3 is not. Likewise, forming one’s conscience must be according to right reason, not what you feel. To say that I’m just following my conscience when my actions go against church teachings is to say my conscience is infallible.

 

[peter_banks]

What you are saying here is that 1+1=2 is the product of right reason; 1+1=3 is not. Likewise, forming one’s conscience must be according to right reason, not what you feel. To say that I’m just following my conscience when my actions go against church teachings is to say my conscience is infallible.

Yes, you are correct!!! Some people say they are following their conscience for the sake of justification. That’s not correct of course.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Okay, however, life is a whole and is not separate compartments. Our spiritual life should direct the rest of our life i.e. secular life, political life, etc. ALL facets of ones life must be directed by the spiritual

Agreed.

I think we must be careful with this line of thinking because in class I “demand” that the students agree with the truth that 1+1=2. There is no other truth that is acceptable. Do you understand? In matters of faith and morals the Pope and the Bishops who are with him speak infallibly. There is only TRUTH. We can choose to say that 1+1=3, but it’s wrong; it’s not the truth. God does demand of us to follow the TRUTH. However, we are free to choose not to. That choice does not however change the TRUTH.

When I saw ‘liberal’, my mind automatically went to politics since that’s where I heard the term used the most.

The example in mind, when I typed this, was the last presidential election. In my opinion, people overlooked the candidate that most closely matched a majority of issues important to us as Catholics. Then it became, there is only one candidate and that was described as a lesser of two evils. I couldn’t vote for either evil, so I wrote in the candidate I viewed as the best choice, with a faith formed conscience. I heard all kinds of accusations and was ‘labeled’ with many names for letting it be known.

The Pope and Bishops have spoken by giving us guidelines on how we should vote. The unity comes in we, as members of the same family, the Church, being able to choose who to vote for by using the guidelines set before us and then using our hopefully well formed minds directed by the faith to make correct, well informed choices. If it were a matter of spiritual life or death, the Holy Father and the Bishops who are with him would definitely give a specific answer.

I read all the documents available and I could not find a unified answer in all the materials available. I read more Church documents and found it was not as cut and dry and people made it out to be.

I also found, through visiting many discussions on these forums, that some who said there was only one way to go also supported issues not in line with what it appeared the Church was telling us; healthcare, immigration, etc. etc.

The Church’s teaching on the death penalty is quite simple: it’s morally wrong period. However, the state has the right to put someone to death if there is no other way. It still doesn’t make it morally right.

I agree with you on this statement, but have been called a ‘liberal’ on these very forums for stating what you’ve just said.

The Holy Father doesn’t support a single view? But he does. He supports the view of accepting the TRUTH—Jesus Christ.
Yes we must be obedient to those who God has allowed to be in charge of us. However, it doesn’t mean that we blindly are obedient to them. And sometimes, we must be disobedient because obedience to God comes first.

Some people probably should leave the Church. Jesus says, paraphrasing, that if those in town don’t accept you and the truth, shake the dust off of your feet and leave that town and woe unto them.

Thank you,
Peter

I agree again. What I was trying to convey is that by the absence of him stating one way or the other on specific issues, we were to use the faith formed conscience and pray for guidance and act with Him in our hearts and minds.

Those in the Church are accepting, as best as they can like the ‘milk before meat’ analogy used by St. Paul. We, especially laypersons, are not to judge another persons worthiness before Him, therefore we should not be asking anyone to leave His Church.

Personally, I don’t think there is a thing that I disagree with the Pope on. I do find that there are times others make the same statement, but disagree with my interpretation of what the Pope’s message is. That’s what my point is, as best as I can put it into words. I hope you understand.

 

[sedonaman]

…Take the last election for example. Why did the Pope not clearly state which candidate should be supported by voting for them? …

At least two reasons I can think of: (1), U.S. law prohibits tax-exempt organizations from endorsing or opposing specific candidates or political parties; (2), notwithstanding (1), the church avoids endorsing candidates and parties because what those candidates and parties support/oppose changes over time. Eventually, this support/opposition would get thrown up to it. Even as it is, one need not look far for an example of how this could happen even with only speculation masquerading as evidence: In spite of all his written opposition to National Socialism before WW-II, Pius XII is still condemned as “Hitler’s Pope” because of the Concordat and his not doing “enough” to help the Jews. Regarding not doing “enough”, how much is “enough”? Those who criticize the pope for not doing “enough” are the ones who scream the loudest that the church should stay out of politics whenever it speaks out against a social evil [read: current liberal cause célèbre].