Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[lynnvinc]

I also wonder why conservatives,* as well as liberals,** stay in the Church.

I figure the conservatives just plain ignore all the liberal messages of the Church and the popes – or twist & distort them to fit their views.

The liberals probably also do the same with the conservative messages.

It’s very good that there are at least a few Christians in the Church, in addition to all those misdirected and Cain-like conservatives and liberals, otherwise it would REALLY be demoralizing to stay in the Church.

---

• I’m assuming “conservative” here means socially/personally conservative – those who believe in an practice chastity, according to their state, and are against immorality and anti-life actions, such as abortion. And not “economic conservative” (which actually used to be called “liberal”), who believes in laissez-faire capitalism with no government involvement to stop the ruthless from stomping on and wiping out the weak, and no help for the down & out in their moment of hard times and grief.

** And I’m assuming “liberal” is not referring to those favoring the laissez-faire capitalist, heartless philosophy (as it used to refer to), but to the bleeding-hearts that can’t bring themselves to make life unbearable for the poor and women, especially those with difficult pregnancies who might be tempted to go to some back-alley abortionist then bleed to death, or gays struggling to live with some peace, dignity, and health insurance.

 

[lynnvinc]

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.

I’m thinking those might not quite be the right questions. The “pro-life” and “pro-choice” people are sort of talking past each other, with many “pro-choice” people saying they personally are against abortion and would never ever have one themselves, but they do not want to impose their belief system on others, or force women into illegal back-alley abortions, or make the decision for women who might be facing a life-threatening pregnancy. I for one would be willing to die trying to have my child, and I would hope that all women would be strong & brave, but perhaps many are not.

BTW, I’m for making abortion illegal, as it was when I was a young person (there were panels back then to decide whether a woman could have an abortion for medical reasons), but only after we have established all possible helps for moms-to-be, such as paid maternity leave, universal health care as in Europe (something well beyond Obamacare), professional cheap/free childcare paid for by taxpayers and not struggling moms barely able to make ends meet (like they have in France), and welfare that can extend beyond 5 years (as if once the kid is 5 no more food/shelter bec mom can’t get a job). Once those things are in place, then I’m all for saying, now there are absolutely no good excuses to have abortions, except the life of the mother, and you just can’t have one, or you’ll go to jail.

As for the gay marriage issue, I don’t think Catholic liberals are suggesting that the Church allow them to take vows of Holy Matrimony; I think it may more be a matter of allowing civil unions or marriages for gays who do not subscribe to Catholic teaching. Not everyone’s a Catholic, even tho they should be. And a strong impetus for their thinking on this might be our lack of adequate health care, with civil marriage being a way to get more people (including innocent children) covered. This is again a problem that our government is not doing the rights thing by people. Give them really good health care and other such benefits that people get thru marriage (but are universally guaranteed in European nations to individuals, even without marriage), and perhaps many liberal Catholics would stop being open to gay civil marriage.

BTW, I am against gay bashing & killing – it is not the Christian way. I’m also against putting them in prison for their sexual immorality, and I would hate to see them unable to get a job and support themselves and the children they might have. Luckily I was born straight, but I also understand there are several different types of biological (genetic and hormonal) factors that can contribute to homosexuality, as well as the hormone-disruptive chemical soup we have created and have been living in over the past 50 years – homosexuality is not always a free choice on their part, and many have trouble maintaining celibacy.

I’ve been somewhat noncommittal on gay marriage, because I know that those who have civil marriages, whether they be gay or straight, are in a state of serious sin, more serious than if they had just remained living together without wedlock, since such marriages are a calculated turning one’s back on God, while cohabiting tends more toward a sin of passion. So whether a couple is straight or gay, getting into a civil marriage is risking hell and damnation. I think perhaps we should oppose civil marriage altogether so as to also help straights avoid hell, but I think we should perhaps do this thru persuasion and good example, and not necessarily go against civil marriage altogether, bec, again, lots of people are not Catholic, and lack understanding. We need to teach them in some gentle ways to which they will respond, rather than harden their immoral position.

The issues are very complex, and we need to use compassion and understanding and interpersonal skill (which I lack), as well as stick to our moral principles. However, I feel society is becoming more and more polarized and hardened in their hearts and positions. The conservatives are also damned through the greatest of all sins, arrogance, if they are unwilling to try and understand all the issues and come up with solutions that may really work.

In my Carmelite group (OCDS) we used to talk about “sins of the left” (from lax morals and debauchery) and “sins of the right” (from self-righteousness and arrogance), and how we should be in the middle and avoid both types of sins.

I always find much comfort in the words and writings of saints, the popes and bishops – which go well beyond this ugly conservative/liberal divide to promote true and beautiful Christianity.

 

[Joe_5859]

I also wonder why conservatives,* as well as liberals,** stay in the Church.

I figure the conservatives just plain ignore all the liberal messages of the Church and the popes – or twist & distort them to fit their views.

The liberals probably also do the same with the conservative messages.

It’s very good that there are at least a few Christians in the Church, in addition to all those misdirected and Cain-like conservatives and liberals, otherwise it would REALLY be demoralizing to stay in the Church.

---

• I’m assuming “conservative” here means socially/personally conservative – those who believe in an practice chastity, according to their state, and are against immorality and anti-life actions, such as abortion. And not “economic conservative” (which actually used to be called “liberal”), who believes in laissez-faire capitalism with no government involvement to stop the ruthless from stomping on and wiping out the weak, and no help for the down & out in their moment of hard times and grief.

** And I’m assuming “liberal” is not referring to those favoring the laissez-faire capitalist, heartless philosophy (as it used to refer to), but to the bleeding-hearts that can’t bring themselves to make life unbearable for the poor and women, especially those with difficult pregnancies who might be tempted to go to some back-alley abortionist then bleed to death, or gays struggling to live with some peace, dignity, and health insurance.

I do think we have to be very cautious about painting it as “us vs. them”. Our battle is against principalities and powers far more than it is with each other.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Because we went to Catholic School

 

[Ahimsa]

I think perhaps we should oppose civil marriage altogether so as to also help straights avoid hell…

Uh, why should Catholics oppose civil marriage altogether (even for heterosexuals)?

 

[St_Francis]

In my Carmelite group (OCDS) we used to talk about “sins of the left” (from lax morals and debauchery) and “sins of the right” (from self-righteousness and arrogance), and how we should be in the middle and avoid both types of sins.

I always find much comfort in the words and writings of saints, the popes and bishops – which go well beyond this ugly conservative/liberal divide to promote true and beautiful Christianity.

I think you are right that there are Catholics who are arrogant and self-righteous, many saints including St Francis de Sales wrote about them. And there are Catholics who suffer from debauchery and lax morals, but I see “liberal Catholics” as a group in particular.

There is a utopian way of thinking out there with many branches: leftism, progressivism, socialism, communism… and these people have certain foundational ideas which are anti-thetical to Catholic thinking, one of which is that mankind is naturally progressing to a great man-made perfection. The subscribers to these ideas believe that individuals, when left to their own devices, will become very good, but that people are prevented from becoming these good people by the various oppressions imposed by non-leftists (or whatever you want to call them), such as male oppression, heterosexual oppression, systemic racism, etc. Now, I am not denying that these problems have and still existed, but the explanation of everything bad that people do as being the inevitable result of oppression is erroneous and leads to bad life-styles.

The leftists believe that the Church, too, is oppressive, that the Church, by expressing certain “rules” such as no sex outside of marriage, no women priests, etc, is contributing to the bad in the world and holding mankind back from achieving the utopoa the leftists believe is our inevitable destiny.

Some of these leftists are members of the Church, and they bring their ideas in with them and hold them instead of truly Catholic ideas like the idea that God is in charge and that without Him we can do nothing, and that our end is not forming a perfect human society in this world but to know, love, and serve God in this vale of tears so that we can be happy with Him in the next.*

Now, to me this is very different from those Catholics who merely stray off here and there–these latter would be all of us insofar as we are all sinners. These liberal Catholics are operating on a different and non-Catholic set of principles altogether.

Now, are there other Catholocs who do the same but from other points of view? I would say yes: there are Catholics so embedded in American-Protestant thinking that they uphold an overly-individualistic way of thinking, and they certainly exist in rather large numbers in the Church here in the US. But most of the ultimate differences there are prudential rather than foundational. These “Americanist” (for lack of a better word) Catholics might differ on how best to accomplish certain aims, and they may be slightly off when it comes to Church teaching, but they do not have an animus against the very foundation of thought the way the leftist Catholics do.

 

[sedonaman]

…many “pro-choice” people saying they personally are against abortion and would never ever have one themselves, but they do not want to impose their belief system on others …

This is a faux argument. It’s the same one used in the slavery/anti-slavery debates of the mid-nineteenth century. The reason it is not an argument at all is that whoever is in charge gets to force his beliefs on others. That’s what government is for, to govern. The only questions are, whose beliefs and by what process. When we vote, we vote for candidate “A” whose beliefs we want forced on society, as opposed to candidate “B” whose beliefs we don’t want forced on society.

 

[sedonaman]

…

• I’m assuming “conservative” here means socially/personally conservative – those who believe in an practice chastity, according to their state, and are against immorality and anti-life actions, such as abortion. And not “economic conservative” (which actually used to be called “liberal”), who believes in laissez-faire capitalism with no government involvement to stop the ruthless from stomping on and wiping out the weak, and no help for the down & out in their moment of hard times and grief…

I think in this case, “conservative” means the preservation of tradition and the status quo.

 

[sedonaman]

Liberalism Is a Sin.

 

[Ahimsa]

Liberalism Is a Sin.

Is that a papal encyclical, or an infallible ex cathedra statement?

 

[sedonaman]

Uh, why should Catholics oppose civil marriage altogether (even for heterosexuals)?

They don’t … for non-Catholics. In fact, the day will come when the government will try to force the Church to perform same-sex “marriages”. When that happens, the Church will renounce its authority to perform legal marriages recognized by secular law, and will perform only sacramental marriages. Civil marriage will come in handy for Catholic couples joined by sacramental marriage to gain legal recognition.

 

[sedonaman]

Is that a papal encyclical, or an infallible ex cathedra statement?

You didn’t even get through page 1.

 

[Ahimsa]

You didn’t even get through page 1.

I’ve read this years before. I’m just curious if you see it as an infallible document.

The document’s definition of “liberalism” is thus:

Hence we find Liberalism laying down as the basis of its propaganda the following principles:
XXXIII. The absolute sovereignty of the individual in his entire independence of God and God’s authority.
XXXIV. The absolute sovereignty of society in its entire independence of everything which does not proceed from itself. (18)

I don’t know any “liberal Catholics” who hold to the “absolute sovereignty” of the individual. If anything, liberals talk more about interdependence and human brother/sisterhood.

 

[sedonaman]

I’ve read this years before. I’m just curious if you see it as an infallible document.
The document’s definition of “liberalism” is thus: …

IOW, relativism.

I don’t know any “liberal Catholics” who hold to the “absolute sovereignty” of the individual. If anything, liberals talk more about interdependence and human brother/sisterhood.

You don’t know the same liberal Catholics I do or the ones in those dissident organizations.

 

[ManOnFire]

There is a utopian way of thinking out there with many branches: leftism, progressivism, socialism, communism… and these people have certain foundational ideas which are anti-thetical to Catholic thinking, one of which is that mankind is naturally progressing to a great man-made perfection. The subscribers to these ideas believe that individuals, when left to their own devices, will become very good, but that people are prevented from becoming these good people by the various oppressions imposed by non-leftists (or whatever you want to call them), such as male oppression, heterosexual oppression, systemic racism, etc. Now, I am not denying that these problems have and still existed, but the explanation of everything bad that people do as being the inevitable result of oppression is erroneous and leads to bad life-styles.

The leftists believe that the Church, too, is oppressive, that the Church, by expressing certain “rules” such as no sex outside of marriage, no women priests, etc, is contributing to the bad in the world and holding mankind back from achieving the utopoa the leftists believe is our inevitable destiny.

It sounds like they are confusing happiness and satisfaction with the glee of perpetual childhood. The glee of perpetual childhood can only last for one generation, as their kids are sure to be LOST by the lack of maturity and responsibility of the parents. The state will be called in to assist the parents who are still lost in perpetual childhood. More kids will grow up dysfunctional to the point that they too will deny marriage and maturity. This is not progress. It’s regress. It starts with a desire for the basest instincts of entertainment of the Self. It’s their delusional fantasy that we can somehow want to perpetually entertain ourselves then believe that we will be somehow magically strong to sacrifice for the next generation. We have TOO much entertainment of Self, yet people act like they can never get enough, like it’s a drug. That’s why so many are lost. Too many are begging for more of the very things that are reducing people. Personal pleasure is intentionally emphasized by the culture. Romanticism, true love, and the beauty of innocence are intentionally de-emphasized by the culture. Herein lies the problem. But people are addicted to the entertainment of the Self, so the best of intentions will Fail until the addicts wake up, stop wishing and hoping for change, and make the sacrifices needed to bring back the beauty of innocence. But the progressives are against true love and the beauty of innocence because this will lead to happy marriages, kids, and population growth. They prefer more porn, drugs, selfishness, high energy prices; all of which make marriage and kids less appealling. Less appealling = depopulation to “save” the planet.

 

[sedonaman]

… But the progressives are against true love and the beauty of innocence because this will lead to happy marriages, kids, and population growth. …

And if people find this true happiness, who needs liberals?

---

"The indispensable condition for our personal spiritual survival, is that we say NO to the prevailing values of the liberal order and that we keep saying NO.”

"What started as a demand for basic civil rights has mutated into a liberal demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes.”

 

[anilorak13ska]

It sounds like they are confusing happiness and satisfaction with the glee of perpetual childhood. The glee of perpetual childhood can only last for one generation, as their kids are sure to be LOST by the lack of maturity and responsibility of the parents. The state will be called in to assist the parents who are still lost in perpetual childhood. More kids will grow up dysfunctional to the point that they too will deny marriage and maturity. This is not progress. It’s regress.

This really resonated with me. I consider myself a liberal, but after following this thread, I think I have to rethink the label I’m assigning myself. I do agree that there IS a difference between liberal and progressive, and having taken into account the above quote about the pursuit of perpetual chidhood being a REgression rather than PROgression, this certainly gives new meaning to the term for me. I have to admit that I am in the process of trying to find my place in Catholicism, having been a bit bruised first by large amounts of indifferent and/or self-righteous Catholics whose attitudes pushed me to seek Jesus’s love outside the church, and also the often misunderstood and misapplied feminism that has been equated with man-hating and pro-abortion (I am neither).

I recently read a fascinating book by the director of Catholic religious ed curriculum called “What makes us Catholic” (google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/510Q98H%252BRJL.BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.amazon.com/What-Makes-Us-Catholic-Eight/dp/0060633999&usg=__1ncEds2IIEkNscUah4ZeLX9c4ZM=&h=300&w=300&sz=19&hl=en&start=1&zoom=1&um=1&itbs=1&tbnid=QDOFQm7DeN3SbM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=116&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwhat%2Bmakes%2Bus%2Bcatholic%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1003%26bih%3D566%26tbm%3Disch&ei=NDkwTtv6N4K_gQefrZSdAQ) In it, he insinuates the possibility of women’s ordination when he says “when the church decides to ordain women, it will start by saying ‘as we have always asserted…’” . The idea is based on the fact that the early church, starting with the company Jesus kept, included women who were quite active in teaching the Gospel and prophesying, and that celibacy became a part of Tradition rather than Jesus’s mandate for priesthood. Now, I’m not bringing this up to try to hijack the thread or to create ripples about women’s ordination. I only bring it up to illustrate the effect that the book had on me. It stated that the Church’s authority does not lie solely in the Papal Office, but rather that it is meant to have checks and balances in place, including the cardinals and also the laity faithful. Slavery was once “oked” by the church, after all, it is “biblical”. So I think the point is that most Catholics get confused over the line between what is essential to our faith, and what is part of Tradition that can and has changed in the past based on individual saints’ “revelations” from personal discernments. God continues to speak to us today. And He is not limited to the Vatican’s area code. Without allowing dissenting, progressive ideas to penetrate the “powers that be”, we’d still live in a society that discourages women’s higher education, allows slavery, or turns a blind eye to sexist attitudes and behaviors that pave the way for domestic violence or blaming rape survivors. That’s not to say that anything goes. But to insinuate, as the topic of this thread does, that anyone with a liberal viewpoint (already a dangerous generalization, as we can’t seem to agree on what this means even) is not welcome in the Catholic church is to be completely ignorant of Jesus’s message of inclusion and forgiveness.

Having said that, I have felt the sting of this notion that “my kind” (people that dare to question) are not welcome in the church, and I HAVE church-shopped. In cyclical stages, I’ve saught the Lord somewhere where I could feel His message permeate the very essence of the gathered faithful. I’ve saught the Lord in places where I’d witness the Gospel being preached not by mere words, but by daily actions. I’ve saught the Lord high and low, and He has always faithfully returned me home to the Catholic church. I am hoping that this time I have gained enough insight to weather the cold shoulders that are so frequently found in Catholic parishes, and instead to not look to others for guidance, but rather to look directly to the Lord for guidance and live accordingly, being an example to others (often those who talk a big talk of holier-than-thou attitudes, yet would surely not be recognized by the Lord for merely saying “Lord, Lord!” (Matthew 7:21-23)).

I also think that how liberal or conservative someone is thought to be is relative. I am Polish, and we often consider American Catholics to be on the conservative side.

 

[BillP]

Why do “liberals” stay in the Church? Because that’s where the Sacraments are!

I think too many people confuse “infallible” with “impeccable”.

As a Liberal myself, I believe in every line of the Nicene Creed

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almightymaker of heaven and earth,of all that is seen and unseen. We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God,eternally begotten of the Father,God from God, Light from Light,true God from true God,begotten, not made,one in Being with the Father.Through him all things were made.For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered, died, and was buried. On the third day he rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son.With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.He has spoken through the Prophets.We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

I view everything else as more or less superfluous detail. Something not to get too worked up about.

What I don’t understand is why so many people are so concerned about who is and isn’t staying in the Church…

 

[PRmerger]

Why do “liberals” stay in the Church? Because that’s where the Sacraments are!

I think too many people confuse “infallible” with “impeccable”.

As a Liberal myself, I believe in every line of the Nicene Creed

I view everything else as more or less superfluous detail. Something not to get too worked up about.

What I don’t understand is why so many people are so concerned about who is and isn’t staying in the Church…

Where do you think the Church gets it wrong, BillP, and where does she get it right*?

And what criterion do you use to discern when she is right/wrong?

I would assume you believe she is correct in her theology regarding the 7 Sacraments? And in discerning which ancient Christian texts are theopneustos?*

 

[BillP]

Where do you think the Church gets it wrong, BillP, and where does she get it right*?

And what criterion do you use to discern when she is right/wrong?

I would assume you believe she is correct in her theology regarding the 7 Sacraments? And in discerning which ancient Christian texts are theopneustos?*

I think the basic tenets, the underlying principles, are spot on.

Love EVERYBODY

Life is Sacred

Mortal Sin separates us from God

The we can willfully choose permanent separation from God

Such choices have consequences.

The Sacraments are a source of Grace

All of these things instinctively or organically feel true (as in the “Natural Law written on the hearts of every man”).

Much of the rest of quasi-Catholic “teaching” consists of well-meaning people trying to codify these principles of tenets into specific laws, rules, regulations with too little reference to the underlying principle.

Let me give you one example.

The Church teaches against masturbation as being a misuse of the sexual faculty for selfish pleasure. It neither creates new life, nor does it bring one closer to one’s spouse. I think that’s a good teaching.

Some people, focus the objection to masturbation on the actual physical act of self-stimulation rather than to the principle underlying the prohibition.

To these people, manual stimulation for the purposes of obtaining a semen sample to diagnose infertility is also prohibited, because they are focused on the physical act rather than the underlying reason the physical act is usually wrong.

I think that is not only “missing the forest for the trees” but just plain silly.

Its like those people don’t trust themselves (or others) to think about the underlying morality and act accordingly.