Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[RobbyS]

I was baptized but not raised Catholic. So when I found that I really needed God in my life,'I became a generic Christian.

It did seem like a lot of different Protestant churches had different ideas about God. It was confusing. This is one of the many things I like about the Catholic Church–it teaches the truth. Rather than being based on the Bible, the Bible is based on the Church which compiled it and determined the canon, the Church which has had the same ideas for 2000 years about God and Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t have to make up my own version of God, like a girl with a crush on a boy she barely knows. I get to find out what God is truly like.

It’s not a question of perception for us, it is a situation of teaching truth as Christ commanded us to. Yes,'God is all-loving, but we err if we forget that He is all just as well. Like a teacher who wants all her students to get straight A’s but who sees that some make no effort and cut classes and so on, God sees that for some of us He is not very important.

You have made up a god. The True God is waiting for you to notice Him.

Yo say that God is love means that there is a right relationship to Him, and a wrong one. He chooses to embrace us, but we can choose to spurn him, to turn out backs to him,to distance ourselves from him, to scorn him. Or just to try to run away, as Jonah did.

 

[RobbyS]

Social justice is a term invented by Father Luigi Taparelli, editor of the Civita Catolica in the mid-1800s. He used principles set out by St Thomas Aquinas to set out principles in reaction to the abuses of the Industrial Revolution. Pope Leo XIII used a lot of these ideas in his encyclical Rerum Novarum.

It is indeed unfortunate that the term has been taken over by those politically on the Far left, progressives and socialists and the like. But their idea of social justice does not line up with Catholic social justice, as, for example, when liberals promote “reproductive health”–handing out artificial birth control to all and abortion when that fails–as “social justice.”

I try to remember to differentiate between true, Catholic, social justice and the false assumption of social justice promoted by leftists.

Could the tribe use some of the systems used by Catholics in the Middle Ages to set up a workable system?

One of the principles of social justice is subsidarity: the idea that action should be done at the lowest possible level, by family and church and other voluntaty asssociations, and only finally by government and at the lowest possible level of government. “Liberals” love centralized government.

 

[sedonaman]

One of the principles of social justice is subsidarity: the idea that action should be done at the lowest possible level, by family and church and other voluntaty asssociations, and only finally by government and at the lowest possible level of government. “Liberals” love centralized government.

Yes. Here is the reference:

Subsidiarity - Pius XI

To help those in need, it is often required to work towards structural change in society. This is not the prerogative only of government officials. In fact, the church has reminded governments that each substratum of society has an appropriate role. The need for vital contributions from different human associations – ranging in size from the family to government – has been classically expressed in Catholic social teaching in the principle of “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity has been defined by Pope Pius XI in his classical encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931:

“Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time, a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help (subsidium) to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.”

Ref: Kevin E. McKenna, You Did It For Me, p 120.
​

I use to live in California, and back in the 1970s the federal government funded a pet census for my city. What can we expect next? Federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish in Nob Noster, MO?

 

[Observer3]

I was baptized but not raised Catholic. So when I found that I really needed God in my life,'I became a generic Christian.

It did seem like a lot of different Protestant churches had different ideas about God. It was confusing. This is one of the many things I like about the Catholic Church–it teaches the truth. Rather than being based on the Bible, the Bible is based on the Church which compiled it and determined the canon, the Church which has had the same ideas for 2000 years about God and Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I don’t have to make up my own version of God, like a girl with a crush on a boy she barely knows. I get to find out what God is truly like.

It’s not a question of perception for us, it is a situation of teaching truth as Christ commanded us to. Yes,'God is all-loving, but we err if we forget that He is all just as well. Like a teacher who wants all her students to get straight A’s but who sees that some make no effort and cut classes and so on, God sees that for some of us He is not very important.

You have made up a god. The True God is waiting for you to notice Him.

You missed the whole point I was expressing. It’s your own perception that you believe the Catholic Church is presenting the truth. That belief only exists within you.

 

[sedonaman]

… Where does scriptures teach us we should legislate morality?..

Jesus said, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s…” With this, he indicates we are under moral obligation to follow civil laws that do not conflict with God’s laws. This is because virtually every law [including those that violate God’s laws] is the codification of something that someone thinks is the morally right thing to do, or to avoid doing. You must pay your taxes to support lawful authority [render unto Caesar]. You must not exceed the speed limit because doing so unreasonably endangers the lives of others. Even the enactment of subsidies by the government is legislating morality because someone decided, for example, that providing federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish who live in Nob Noster, MO, is a morally good thing. Likewise to provide funds to count dogs in Oxnard, CA.

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. …

A priest once told me that if he became convinced that the Catholic Church did not teach the truth, he would be conscience-bound to seek the truth elsewhere. So, if I thought the Church was committing a great wrong by not admitting women to the priesthood, I am conscience-bound to find a church that does. And so with the myriad of other liberal causes.

I hope this puts to bed the notion that I can rationalize any activity by simply declaring, “I’m just following my conscience.”

So the question remains: Since they are conscience-bound to find truth, and if they are acting according to their conscience, why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

 

[PRmerger]

So, if I thought the Church was committing a great wrong by not admitting women to the priesthood, I am conscience-bound to find a church that does.

Perhaps they feel they are conscience bound to *remain *in the Church and reform it, ala St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi…at least, that’s what I’ve understood from reading liberal Catholics here on the CAFs.

 

[sedonaman]

Perhaps they feel they are conscience bound to *remain *in the Church and reform it, ala St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi…at least, that’s what I’ve understood from reading liberal Catholics here on the CAFs.

It’s not their job to “reform” the church.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s not their job to “reform” the church.

Ok. Whoduhthunk I’d be taking the side of liberal Catholics, but I’m just going to argue their position right now and ask: why do St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis of Assisi get to reform the Church and not a current day liberal Catholic?

 

[sedonaman]

Ok. Whoduhthunk I’d be taking the side of liberal Catholics, but I’m just going to argue their position right now and ask: why do St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis of Assisi get to reform the Church and not a current day liberal Catholic?

Take a look at this list of organizations that want to “reform” the Church and tell me what they have in common with St. Teresa and St. Francis that justifies your equating them.

I’ve said many times that the lay liberal Catholic is practicing what I call “The Gospel in Reverse”. Jesus commissioned the first apostles to “go forth into the world, preaching the Gospel as I have taught you.” He did not say, “go into the world and find out what the liberal ‘in’ ideas of the day are and bring them back and incorporate them into my Church.”

I’ve heard your argument before … many times, and it’s similar to Mohammed’s which went something like this: “The Jews rejected the prophets of old. I am being rejected by the Jews; therefore I must be a prophet.” The current liberal reformer says, “Sts. Teresa and Francis were reformers. I am a reformer; therefore I must be a saint, too.”

 

[PRmerger]

Take a look at this list of organizations that want to “reform” the Church and tell me what they have in common with St. Teresa and St. Francis that justifies your equating them.

I’ve said many times that the lay liberal Catholic is practicing what I call “The Gospel in Reverse”. Jesus commissioned the first apostles to “go forth into the world, preaching the Gospel as I have taught you.” He did not say, “go into the world and find out what the liberal ‘in’ ideas of the day are and bring them back and incorporate them into my Church.”

I’ve heard your argument before … many times, and it’s similar to Mohammed’s which went something like this: “The Jews rejected the prophets of old. I am being rejected by the Jews; therefore I must be a prophet.” The current liberal reformer says, “Sts. Teresa and Francis were reformers. I am a reformer; therefore I must be a saint, too.”

Your point is well made. I am convinced! (Not that I wasn’t before. I was just sayin’…)

 

[sedonaman]

Your point is well made. I am convinced! (Not that I wasn’t before. I was just sayin’…)

I know.

 

[St_Francis]

You missed the whole point I was expressing. It’s your own perception that you believe the Catholic Church is presenting the truth. That belief only exists within you.

I don’t really know what evidence you have for yoir beliefs, but I have a lot of evidence for mine.

What I will say is that when I returned to the Catholic Church, I didn’t get some of the teachings but I worked on molding myself to God rather than trying to get God to fit into a mold I made up for Him.

You say you believe in God, but an atheist could say to you precisely what you said to me. But in the case of my beliefs, there is evidence. Not always material evidence of the sort scientists like, and not always Sola-Scriptura evidence like the Protestants like, but an overall multi-faceted evidence.

 

[hawwahh]

I suppose you could tell her the same thing you’d tell her if she said she wants to grow up to be a daddy: “Sweetheart, girls can’t be daddys.”

But, why can’t women be priests? I don’t think it’s a matter of biology like the “daddy” argument; both the mother and father are “parents” in my view. fyi: her father’s family is Catholic and that’s why I’m trying to teach her the principles of Catholicism as well as my views as a Unitarian. She can form her own befiefs as she matures.

 

[PRmerger]

But, why can’t women be priests? I don’t think it’s a matter of biology like the “daddy” argument; both the mother and father are “parents” in my view. fyi: her father’s family is Catholic and that’s why I’m trying to teach her the principles of Catholicism as well as my views as a Unitarian. She can form her own befiefs as she matures.

The “daddy” argument is not biological matter at all. It’s an ontological matter.

Clearly, even if women had the “biological equipment” dangling from their personals so to speak , it doesn’t make them a daddy when they take their daughter to soccer practice.

It’s more of an ontological understanding that women, even when they do things daddys do, can’t be a daddy.

And women, even if they did the same thing a priest does–counsel families, manage a parish, say the words of consecration–can’t be a priest. It’s just not ontologically possible.

 

[themeginthemoon]

I know.

I, however, remain unconvinced. We will have to agree to disagree, I think your generalizations on Native American land ownership are unfounded and inaccurate. You are a good debater, but I still think you are missing the point on everything I said.

 

[sedonaman]

… I think your generalizations on Native American land ownership are unfounded and inaccurate.

Has there been a more prosperous economic system than capitalism? If there has, what is it? When the land is held by the tribe, it is a commune and cannot be converted to capital by entrepreneurial members. If a culture believes that the land is something special that exempts it from being owned, that culture is never going to prosper above that of an aboriginal existence. I don’t see why my statements are “unfounded and inaccurate” because we have test cases of prosperous tribes * that allow private ownership of their land. To see how important private land ownership is to prosperity, I recommend The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else
amazon.com/Mystery-Capital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016154/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1305207863&sr=8-1

…I still think you are missing the point on everything I said.

Perhaps. What is your point?*

 

[St_Francis]

Perhaps they feel they are conscience bound to *remain *in the Church and reform it, ala St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis of Assisi…at least, that’s what I’ve understood from reading liberal Catholics here on the CAFs.

But, why can’t women be priests? I don’t think it’s a matter of biology like the “daddy” argument; both the mother and father are “parents” in my view. fyi: her father’s family is Catholic and that’s why I’m trying to teach her the principles of Catholicism as well as my views as a Unitarian. She can form her own befiefs as she matures.

While it is true that it’s a matter of ontology, that may not be helpful to you. Consider it this way: the Jews did not require circumcision (in the strict sense of the word, not considering what some call female genital mutilation), and they could not require it because it is a mark on the “shape” of a male which does not exist on a female body.

So you could look at it like this: ordination, like baptism, leaves a mark on the soul. A woman’s soul is different than a man’s soul–you could say it’s a different shape, one which does not have the correct shape for the mark of ordination.

A woman thus cannot be ordained, just as she could not be a father: when someone attempts to ordain a woman, an ordination simply does not occur.

 

[sedonaman]

While it is true that it’s a matter of ontology, that may not be helpful to you. Consider it this way: the Jews did not require circumcision (in the strict sense of the word, not considering what some call female genital mutilation), and they could not require it because it is a mark on the “shape” of a male which does not exist on a female body.

So you could look at it like this: ordination, like baptism, leaves a mark on the soul. A woman’s soul is different than a man’s soul–you could say it’s a different shape, one which does not have the correct shape for the mark of ordination.

A woman thus cannot be ordained, just as she could not be a father: when someone attempts to ordain a woman, an ordination simply does not occur.

INTER INSIGNIORES
Declaration on the Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (15 October 1976)
Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfinsig.htm

I don’t have a reference, but do remember reading a while back that some people who tried to ordain a woman were excommunicated.

 

[PRmerger]

While it is true that it’s a matter of ontology, that may not be helpful to you. Consider it this way: the Jews did not require circumcision (in the strict sense of the word, not considering what some call female genital mutilation), and they could not require it because it is a mark on the “shape” of a male which does not exist on a female body.

So you could look at it like this: ordination, like baptism, leaves a mark on the soul. A woman’s soul is different than a man’s soul–you could say it’s a different shape, one which does not have the correct shape for the mark of ordination.

A woman thus cannot be ordained, just as she could not be a father: when someone attempts to ordain a woman, an ordination simply does not occur.

If this were Facebook I’d click “Like!”.

Hope you don’t mind if I borrow this for future discourse.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

But, why can’t women be priests? I don’t think it’s a matter of biology like the “daddy” argument; both the mother and father are “parents” in my view. fyi: her father’s family is Catholic and that’s why I’m trying to teach her the principles of Catholicism as well as my views as a Unitarian. She can form her own befiefs as she matures.

The answer is that the Church has no authority to ordain women.

Why can’t kool-aid and rice cakes be confected for the Eucharist? Surely we could find something ‘better’ than wine (think of the alcoholics!) and ‘wheat bread’. What about countries where wheat isn’t a staple?

Well, the Church has NO authority to confect the Eucharist except under bread and wine.

That isn’t because ‘bread and wine’ are somehow intrinsically better ‘foods’ than any other. It is what it is because GOD decreed it. . .and nobody else has the authority to change what God decrees, right? We call it ‘valid matter’.

Men aren’t intrinsically ‘better’ than women, but God decreed male-only priesthood. He decreed it all the way back to the Jewish people --and this at a time when FEMALES in secular societies were NORMALLY chosen over men for religious work. Imagine how the priestesses of Ba’al must have felt. . .imagine, they would storm, the NERVE of some Jewish men thinking they were GOOD ENOUGH to be priests! Men can’t be priests! It’s unpossible!