S
sedonaman
Guest
What I hear you saying is that our default position should be that tradition is wrong. Check this out:
- Status
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
There are many intellectually dishonest people here. They seem to be the majority because they are often the most vocal. But there are others too. You just need to keep your eyes open.
I was surprised to find that this site serves to alienate people from Catholicism as often as it attracts them, I think because of the widespread rejection of diversity among those he visit. Rejection might be too tame a word… more like condemnation. There is a very narrow agenda here which is probably not reflective of Catholicism as it really exists today, and which does a disservice to the image of the Church.
S
sedonaman
Guest
I don’t know what this sentence is saying, but what do you mean by “diversity”?
M
MontChevalier
Guest
Those with different opinions. Like myself, who have had different opinions and have received severe treatment, in return.
R
Rock_Happy
Guest
u either tow the line on the narrow views which this site promotes, or you are banned, or entire threads are deleted when factual information or differing opinions are presented. statements which are disrespectful and insulting to people who disagree with the party line are left standing, anything which could be even slightly controversial going the other way is dealt with harshly.
back to the OP here… the bias of this thread’s premise is that “liberals”, that is moderates in the real world, are somehow out of place in the catholic church. The moderate view would be that some extreme elements of the Church are trying to take it over, similar to the moves in US politics for extremists to take over the republican party.
There are good reasons for moderates not to leave the Church. The Church needs their help to regain its bearing at this time.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I hope that you were not treated uncharitably by Catholics here, MC.
On the other hand, if you present opinions that are, well, not consonant with Truth, then it is a Christian charity to rebuke you.
For example, if someone comes and professes here that white men are superior to everyone, then I would hope that his opinion would be sliced, diced and put to shame!
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
One of the problems with this thread, and with assumptions in general about Catholicism (both those raised in it and those not), has to do with confusing several concepts & terms:
~the stated teaching (doctrines, dogma) of the Roman Church are not subject to change by laity, or for that matter by clergy who are not members of The Congregation for the Doctrine of the faith. With minor variations throughout history in how those teachings are explained, elaborated on (and the language used for that teaching), the essence of the teaching does not change. There is no such thing as having a valid opinion about what the teaching actually is, if that “opinion” differs from what has been pronounced from Rome in black and white.
~everybody, in and out of the Church, can react to those teachings and their absolute quality. People – clergy, religious, laity – do have reactions and responses, all of which are valid opinions about that teaching. (“I do like the teaching about _____; I don’t like the teaching about _______;” “I wish the teaching about ______ were not ______”) That is a very different thing from stating,
“*The fact that my behavior differs from what Rome has said is acceptable for a practicing Catholic has no bearing on how genuine my adherence to Catholicism is.” (IOW, I’m defining the practice of, the teachings of, Catholicism.) *
~Most Catholics have some areas of annoyance or struggle with Church teachings; some even have a lot of areas of divergence, intellectually. The fact of intellectual conflict (having mental reservations about the definitive teaching), in itself, does not make anyone “less Catholic.” It makes (may make) it more difficult to practice the faith comfortably at times.
That is a very different thing than proclaiming that Catholicism can merely be personally defined in terms of its moral, sacramental, systematic theology. No one can define those areas except for the leaders of the institution. (Such as people who will conform to all the teaching except the teaching on sexuality; people who engage in private interpretation of scripture to justify forbidden behavior; people who violate Church commandments on sacramental observance.)
Catholic theology is not a popularity contest or an opinion poll. It has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, let alone what anyone likes or doesn’t like. It is stable teaching that is not subject to modification by reason of personal “opinion.” So a person either is or isn’t speaking accurately about the fact of a Church teaching; his or her opinion on whether he or she likes the teaching is a different matter.
Someone above said something about “moderates” in the Church (including clergy). I’m sure even the Pope would agree that many emphases and personalities are not only legitimate in the Church, but desirable. That, again, has nothing to do with the stability of the theology, but rather a style. Thus, it is good that some priests and reliigous are more concerned with spirituality than apologetics, that some have a charism to work with the poor or to teach, while others are suited to more cerebral pursuits such as writing and forming policy. The very fact that there are different interests and gifts helps also to ensure a certain balance when it comes to diocesan policies, parish liturgies, etc. Clergy who have a more “moderate” style may be constructive when it comes to ministering to a certain group or being a bridge on a practical level, as opposed to emphasizing the doctrinal approach. However, no matter how much such a clergyman wants to emphasize ministry instead of doctrine, that clergyman is not free to change doctrine unilaterally, to declare a different doctrine, or to encourage his flock to disobey the doctrine. That’s not a “liberal.” That’s a saboteur.
No individual priest speaking on his own accord has any authority to change Roman Catholic doctrine, no matter how much he personally dislikes it, no matter how much his flock may not like it. Ditto, of course, for any lay person or for groups of lay people, groups of clergy, etc. He can try to influence Rome, through perhaps his bishop or cardinal, to modify certain language in documents, to explain things better, to enlarge constructive ministries to deal with disaffected people, to encourage better communication & catechesis. He can also suggest changes in practices or disciplines (liturgy, celibacy, etc.) But he cannot and must not, if he is faithful to his promise of obedience, declare any teaching null & void, unimportant, etc. To do so is to be a terrible leader to his flock.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
In fact, I daresay that if you are in a church whose doctrines agree with your own assessment 100% of the time, then I propose that you have created a church in your own image, rather than conforming your image to God’s.
That is, if there’s nothing that your church teaches that makes you go, ‘Hmmm, I really wish that this weren’t Jesus’ message, but He said it, thus I must abide" then you are simply changing Jesus’ message to make* you* more comfortable. One example might be on divorce. It might make it easier to believe that Jesus really didn’t say, “If you divorce and re-marry you commit adultery” but there is no disputing His Words. I must conform to this teaching, even if I don’t like it.
If you haven’t had to change your belief, rather than demanding that that the Church change her belief, then you are creating and worshiping a false god, a god made in your image.
D
DJ_Pius_X
Guest
That’s a little bit of an oversimplification. “Tradition is wrong” is the cornerstone of modernist (and post-modernist) thought, which has caused countless deaths in the last century by the political doctrine of permanent revolution.
I by no means subscribe to modernist thought wholeheartedly, but nor am I going to blindly follow tradition just because it’s the way things have been done. I’m going to weigh the evidence and allow my own conscience to tell me what tradition is good and what tradition needs to be scrapped.
A problem with a lot of Catholics is that they’re throwing out primacy of conscience for primacy of tradition. It’s a very easy way to justify not thinking about things for yourself.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
A problem with a lot of other Catholics is that they’re doing the reverse, and have become their own “tradition.”
Assuming that those who understand and respect tradition do not “think about things for themselves” is a very easy way to justify not understanding the relationship among the study of sacred tradition, the application of intellect to that tradition, and the development of conscience in concert with both.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Two thousand years of tradition are wrong, but one person’s conscience and ability to think are infallible?
T
tskrobacz
Guest
By all accounts Jesus was very liberal in his day. As with conservatives, we need people of all views and perspectives for the Spirit to operate in our world.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Do you mean, by “all views” actually “all views that I agree with”?
For surely you do not agree that we need people who think that white people are superior to all others in the Church (proclaiming their views as valid).
S
sedonaman
Guest
List some of them.
Even members of these groups ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/dissorg.htm ? [Page down to list.]
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
Wrong.
He was exceptionally traditional. (Reread Matthew Chapter 5.)He returned Judaism to its roots of fidelity to covenant and commandments, as properly understood expansively and comprehensively. It wasn’t a substitution of something new against something old, but rather a reaffirmation and restoration of interior and exterior morality operating together – rather than division of one from the other.
Compassion for the poor and the outcast are traditional and original Jewish mandates. The Jews of His day had wandered from their full fidelity to God’s commands; it was Jesus who drew them back to an understanding of how deeply that Mosaic Law extended into their lives.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I don’t think we can really cram Jesus into our 21st century liberal vs. conservative paradigm. Jesus was the fulfillment of the old Law (“not one part of a letter will pass away…”, etc.), but he also undeniably did many new things (“thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church”, “I am the bread of life”, etc., etc.).
I think it’s a rather futile enterprise to try to turn Jesus into the mascot for what people nowadays refer to as “liberal” and “conservative.”
I think it’s a rather futile enterprise to try to turn Jesus into the mascot for what people nowadays refer to as “liberal” and “conservative.”
T
tskrobacz
Guest
He welcomed women into his circle, ate with prostitutes and tax collectors, and openly criticized the political and religious leaders of his day.
Yes, many of the groups on your “list” are doing great work in our world and are enormously influential in keeping a balanced view of reality.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
He criticized the religious leaders for straying from the Mosaic Law, not for obeying the Mosaic Law. They had distorted the Law and were practicing a superficial Judaism by which they allowed themselves to interpret “liberally” which commandments were important and which were not. The Mosaic Law commanded compassion and certainly did not exclude women. There were certain political and cultural assumptions which he did challenge, but again in the move toward a fuller understanding of tradition, not away from that ancient tradition.
S
sedonaman
Guest
Is this how you define liberalism? He didn’t eat with them and say, “Have a nice day.” He said, “Sin no more,” a part that liberals constantly overlook when quoting scripture.
The essence of today’s liberalism is tolerance über alles. The central credo of modern liberalism is that all intolerance and discrimination must be eliminated. In a society dedicated to that proposition, the good itself must ultimately be seen as evil, because the good discriminates against evil, while evil must be blessed with victim status, because it is excluded by the good. Thus the constant liberal harping on “discrimination”. Thus the Catholic Church is “evil” because it excludes anti-Catholic ideas. You are no different. You want these groups not to be discriminated against and to be included in Catholicism, but their beliefs are diametrically opposed to basic Catholic beliefs. As anti-social ideas advocated by liberals would destroy organized society, including non-Catholic ideas into Catholicism would destroy the Church, which has been the liberal goal all along. Jesus might have forgiven the sins of prostitutes, et al, but he did not tolerate sin. So, I don’t think Jesus advocated tolerance über alles. Therefore, he was not a liberal, by your definition or mine.
In March 1996, Bishop Bruskewitz of the Diocese of Lincoln, Nebraska excommunicated all Catholics in his diocese who were members of Call to Action or several other dissident groups which he described as “totally incompatible with the Catholic faith.” The Vatican affirmed the excommunication, and rightfully so; these organizations are heretical, meaning they seek to introduce error into Church teaching.
I’m not sure what you mean by “a balanced view of reality;” sounds like relativism.
C
Contarini
Guest
Not infallible, but you’re obliged to follow it, while seeking to forming it more perfectly.
Fear of being wrong is one of the great hindrances to living and thinking virtuously. I see that fear all over this forum. People want a system that will guarantee that they won’t make mistakes. There is no such system.
I am not, by the way, defining infallibility in the highly limited sense in which the Catholic Church officially claims it. I am challenging the way infallibility has been embraced in the past couple of centuries as a way of responding to the uncertainties of the modern world.
Edwin
- Status