Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Joe_5859]

I go along with the Church in everything, unlike conservatives, who are cafeteria Catholics, who tend to deny anthropogenic climate change and other environmental harms, or that our current global economic system is very harmful and death-causing to the poor.

I would caution against generalizations in the other direction. I don’t think it’s helpful to hurl charges of “cafeteria Catholicism” back and forth.

I don’t think that being skeptical of anthropogenic climate change is going against Catholic teaching. There is no doctrine on the causes of climate change. There is doctrine when it comes to the morality of abortion, homosexual acts, and even good stewardship of the earth. By nature, I am suspicious of alarmist-esque claims that the day after tommorrow will look like The Day After Tomorrow.

 

[lynnvinc]

the conservative theme of “individual responsibility” really DOES have some merit as a consideration when viewing social policy. It is better for have, for instance, responsible parents than to have to have government set up various kinds of oversight mechanisms and officers. It is better in two ways, first, of course, less cost; secondly, more profound, it just makes us better, more mature, more WHOLE persons if we accept the consequences of our actions.

I think most liberals would agree with that; they would only want to make sure that no one falls thru the cracks, that there is help for people when & if they need it. For instance, if a woman and poor and her man left her standed and she’s in process of having a baby, she can’t very well be working on some job. Small children with poor or no-good parents also cannot be expected to work and pay their way, nor can feeble elderly or very sick people. I would love to see my tax dollars go for people like that who are unable to help themselves.

Also gov does have a role to play in protecting us against various harms and problems.

As for environmental issues, what is needed (as the popes have been claiming) is responsiblity and action at all levels from individuals to households to businesses/schools/churches to local, state, federal, and international governmental authorities – always with an eye to reducing harm, but not using harm as an excuse to exceed rightful power.

We all need to pitch in, rather than sit back and say, oh I don’t know it seems to me all is okay because the sun is shining and the birds are singing (the world is so beautiful that it is hard at times to accept what the scientists are saying).

 

[St_Francis]

As for environmental issues, what is needed (as the popes have been claiming) is responsiblity and action at all levels from individuals to households to businesses/schools/churches to local, state, federal, and international governmental authorities – always with an eye to reducing harm, but not using harm as an excuse to exceed rightful power.

We all need to pitch in, rather than sit back and say, oh I don’t know it seems to me all is okay because the sun is shining and the birds are singing (the world is so beautiful that it is hard at times to accept what the scientists are saying).

I’ve been hearing Chicken Little stuff about the earth for well over 40 years now, and I 'm only 53.

I’ve heard we’re going to run out of resources because of overpopulation and that we’re going to be out of oil by the 1990s. The earth is going to freeze. The earth is going to warm. The warming if the earth will cause massive freezing.

Sorry, I don’t buy any of it any more. I am not against people, including those legal persons aka corporations, cleaning up after themselves, but I am against completely destroying economies for the sake of something which is conti ually being predicted and yet never happens.

And you’re saying this makes me a bad Catholic???

 

[themeginthemoon]

I’ve been hearing Chicken Little stuff about the earth for well over 40 years now, and I 'm only 53.

I’ve heard we’re going to run out of resources because of overpopulation and that we’re going to be out of oil by the 1990s. The earth is going to freeze. The earth is going to warm. The warming if the earth will cause massive freezing.

Sorry, I don’t buy any of it any more. I am not against people, including those legal persons aka corporations, cleaning up after themselves, but I am against completely destroying economies for the sake of something which is conti ually being predicted and yet never happens.

And you’re saying this makes me a bad Catholic???

Doesn’t make you a bad Catholic, but I think you are in serious denial if you won’t acknowledge that people are doing serious harm to our planet. We have decimated thousands of species of animals and destroyed some very sensitive ecosystems… you think this won’t ultimately have some grave consequences?

 

[formerlysure]

I am not in full agreement eith some church discipline but agree with the dictrine. Some might suggest i should leave Catholicism and have on this site because I challenge a few issues. I think it is a strange suggestion. Im not offended but, maybe because i come from a country …the U.S., where part of the responsibulity of membership is to challenge abuse of authority, or ideas that seem not to make sense, I do not think it is disrespectful nor out of step nor in conflict with faithful membership to do so in my faith either.

I dont agree with my family on everything but would not leave any of them. I dont agree with my government on many issues, but remain patriotic. And i spat with my church at times…which i wouldnt bother if i didnt love and respect Catholicism.

There is also a maturity in knowing we dont always get our way…we dont take our ball and run home crying because others wont change the rules for us. Most people will compromise …you know, loose the individual battle to win the relationship.

 

[St_Francis]

Doesn’t make you a bad Catholic, but I think you are in serious denial if you won’t acknowledge that people are doing serious harm to our planet. We have decimated thousands of species of animals and destroyed some very sensitive ecosystems… you think this won’t ultimately have some grave consequences?

But this is not a matter of faith and morals, so it does not make me a bad Catholoc that I believe something different about the environment than you do. That’s my point.

 

[lynnvinc]

I’ve been hearing Chicken Little stuff about the earth for well over 40 years now, and I 'm only 53.

I’ve heard we’re going to run out of resources because of overpopulation and that we’re going to be out of oil by the 1990s. The earth is going to freeze. The earth is going to warm. The warming if the earth will cause massive freezing.

Sorry, I don’t buy any of it any more. I am not against people, including those legal persons aka corporations, cleaning up after themselves, but I am against completely destroying economies for the sake of something which is conti ually being predicted and yet never happens.

And you’re saying this makes me a bad Catholic???

It might, and your soul may be in jeopardy. Catholic moral theology is struggling to come to grips with a situation in which unintended side effects from cumulative acts of many people that individually and in isolation would be trivial and benign – such as those that cause serious harm through climate change – are indeed immoral, if one is not striving to reduce one’s harm.

Furthermore, since I’ve been striving to reduce my GHGs for over 20 years and have reduced them by 40%+ below 1990 emissions, and have save $thousands and not lowered our living standard, I can stay with good confidence that reducing one’s share of harm will NOT harms ones pocketbook, but help it, and together many doing this would help the economy as well.

It’s like if you seek first the kingdom of God and its righteousness, all things will be given unto you. I now know that to be a carved-in-stone fact, and am ashamed I ever doubted it.

 

[PRmerger]

I dont agree with my family on everything but would not leave any of them. I dont agree with my government on many issues, but remain patriotic. And i spat with my church at times…which i wouldnt bother if i didnt love and respect Catholicism.

But what about this: would you say that it’s ok to disagree with God on some things? As in, “Well, I know that God said that if you divorce and re-marry then it’s adultery, but I just have some disagreements with God on this issue!”

If you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that Scripture says that Jesus gave the Apostles and then the Church the authority to speak for him (He who hears you hears me), then when you disagree with the Church on certain issues, it’s akin to saying you disagree with Jesus.

 

[guanophore]

Sure, everyone questions “commonly believed ideas”, because many ideas are commonly believed by someone or some group.

The difference is that liberal Catholics are more willing to question ideas (such as geocentrism) that are not necessarily “dogma”, but that nonetheless are believed to play a supporting role in confirming dogma, or to come from a common-sense reading of scripture.

I think you are on to something here, Ahimsa. You are right about liberals misunderstandng the Source of dogma. Instead of receivng the Truth from Jesus, through the Aposltes as it is infallibly preserved in the Aposotolic succesion, they think that doctrines come out of the human mind somehow. They do believe that such things like geocentrism are germaine to forming dogma, not recognizing that the doctrines ofthe Catholic faith all come from God, not from man.

As to the “common sense reading of scripture”, I think you are on to something there too. Liberals reject the Mind of Christ that exists in the Church, and interpret things according to their own “common sense”, over and above the revelation of God given to the Chruch. They really do think their mind, intellect, will, and common sense are superior to God’s revelation of Himself to man.

 

[guanophore]

Well, as you well know, there are many “non-dogmatic” statements that, nonetheless, are part of Church teaching. These include statements that are taught with the charism of infallibility (definitive doctrines), or proposed authoritatively (authoritative doctrines), or prudential admonitions and church discipline. A conservative Catholic would tend to not question even the non-dogmatic statements, whereas a liberal Catholic would. And, of course, both liberal and conservative Catholics are fully Catholic.

You are mistaken. The only statements taught with teh carism of infalliiblity are definitive. It is the rebellion against these teachings of the Church that distinguishes liberals from conservatives. Conservative Catholics embrace all that the Church proposes to us, while liberals beieve they can pick and choose what they want, like going through a cafeteria line.

 

[MontChevalier]

You are mistaken. The only statements taught with teh carism of infalliiblity are definitive. It is the rebellion against these teachings of the Church that distinguishes liberals from conservatives. Conservative Catholics embrace all that the Church proposes to us, while liberals beieve they can pick and choose what they want, like going through a cafeteria line.

…which is why I think we should just excommunicate them. Can we please do that? Please?

-MontChevalier

 

[themeginthemoon]

…which is why I think we should just excommunicate them. Can we please do that? Please?

-MontChevalier

:dts: Very uncharitable! There is always hope that they come back to the Church’s teachings… barring them from the sacraments will not accomplish anything!

 

[PRmerger]

:dts: Very uncharitable! There is always hope that they come back to the Church’s teachings… barring them from the sacraments will not accomplish anything!

Come on, now. I think the little winky-face that MC added to his comment means that he wasn’t being serious.

Originally Posted by **MontChevalier ** which is why I think we should just excommunicate them. Can we please do that? Please?

 

[Ben_F]

To para-phrase Saint Peter, Where else would I go?

 

[PRmerger]

To para-phrase Saint Peter, Where else would I go?

But did you notice that St. Peter did not try to change Jesus’ teachings to conform to that which he felt was correct? St. Peter actually conformed his beliefs to Christ’s.

 

[formerlysure]

But what about this: would you say that it’s ok to disagree with God on some things? As in, “Well, I know that God said that if you divorce and re-marry then it’s adultery, but I just have some disagreements with God on this issue!”

If you believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and that Scripture says that Jesus gave the Apostles and then the Church the authority to speak for him (He who hears you hears me), then when you disagree with the Church on certain issues, it’s akin to saying you disagree with Jesus.

As is evident on most any string on this forum, our religion is complex and many of us do not even agree on what exactly it is that the church teaches. There is tremendous interpretation that goes on, and a great deal of misunderstanding and miscommunication as can be expected among the faithful in the largest religion in the world - millions of people. If God Himself came into my living room and made everything clear, I doubt I’d disagree. But as men, as his messengers, come to me through various means and are not themselves in agreement or telling a consistent story, it’s not possible to believe them all.

Just the fact that people discuss “liberal” versus “main stream” versus “conservative” Catholics makes my point. Each support their views theologically, some better than others, and those of us faithful who are trying to learn are left to sift through it all - thankfully with a lot of available help.

 

[PRmerger]

But as men, as his messengers, come to me through various means and are not themselves in agreement or telling a consistent story, it’s not possible to believe them all.

Then how is it that you decide whether something is from God, or from men? What is the barometer you use?

That is, do you believe the Church got it right when she proclaims that God is love? If so, how do you know that’s from God and not men?

It seems to me, in the paradigm you’re using, the barometer you use is :“that which conforms to* my* beliefs”. You are creating a god in your* own* image then?

Perhaps I am wrong–and if so, could you please tell me, then, what is the barometer or canon or measuring stick you use to discern what you believe to be from God?

 

[MontChevalier]

:dts: Very uncharitable! There is always hope that they come back to the Church’s teachings… barring them from the sacraments will not accomplish anything!

I was just putting that out there. Besides, I put the winky face.

Barring them from the sacraments will keep them from changing the sacraments. But it’s just a thought.

-MontChevalier

 

[formerlysure]

Then how is it that you decide whether something is from God, or from men? What is the barometer you use?

That is, do you believe the Church got it right when she proclaims that God is love? If so, how do you know that’s from God and not men?

It seems to me, in the paradigm you’re using, the barometer you use is :“that which conforms to* my* beliefs”. You are creating a god in your* own* image
?

Perhaps I am wrong–and if so, could you please tell me, then, what is the barometer or canon or measuring stick you use to discern what you believe to be from God?

I personally do not consider myself liberal, but find often I’m accused of a whole Plethora of liberal leanings because there are a couple of issues…not doctrinal but some disciplines…on which I am not convinced. I get offended by those who (without a winky face) suggest I don’t belong in the church. The issues I question do not relate to my personal behavior so I am not picking and choosing what to obey of not.

The barometer I guess is the source first, and then how much spin and interpretation it has been given in the delivery. It is not a fast process for me but an ongoing study and reaching for truth.

For example a priest recently explained to me that the “literal meaning” of religious writings is the “meaning intends by the author”. Commonly people believe it to be the exacting definition of the words in curent language translations. That is a huge difference.

By this meaning, we discussed, Noah could have been in a tremendous flood which covered the earth to his knowledge…in a large region, not the whole world necessarily. And he may have had two of a great many regional species…not , for example polar bears given he was not where they would exist. This makes sense and does nothing whatsoever to diminish God’s message in the story.

Some would say I am a heretic to accept this explanation but it was explained to me by a very conservative, extremely educated priest and he had the goods to back it up.

My own interpretation does come into it…that is unavoidable. We all interpret and decide. Those who claim the other guy does bug they don’t themselves are not being honest. A decision to be Catholic, conservative or liberal, to accept one interpretation over another…we can’t take ourselves out of it.

 

[PRmerger]

I personally do not consider myself liberal, but find often I’m accused of a whole Plethora of liberal leanings because there are a couple of issues…not doctrinal but some disciplines…on which I am not convinced. I get offended by those who (without a winky face) suggest I don’t belong in the church. The issues I question do not relate to my personal behavior so I am not picking and choosing what to obey of not.

The barometer I guess is the source first, and then how much spin and interpretation it has been given in the delivery. It is not a fast process for me but an ongoing study and reaching for truth.

For example a priest recently explained to me that the “literal meaning” of religious writings is the “meaning intends by the author”. Commonly people believe it to be the exacting definition of the words in curent language translations. That is a huge difference.

By this meaning, we discussed, Noah could have been in a tremendous flood which covered the earth to his knowledge…in a large region, not the whole world necessarily. And he may have had two of a great many regional species…not , for example polar bears given he was not where they would exist. This makes sense and does nothing whatsoever to diminish God’s message in the story.

Some would say I am a heretic to accept this explanation but it was explained to me by a very conservative, extremely educated priest and he had the goods to back it up.

My own interpretation does come into it…that is unavoidable. We all interpret and decide. Those who claim the other guy does bug they don’t themselves are not being honest. A decision to be Catholic, conservative or liberal, to accept one interpretation over another…we can’t take ourselves out of it.

Fair enough.

I would caution you, though, to consider this: if you truly are conforming your beliefs to Christ’s, then there ought to be quite a few doctrines/dogmas/disciplines/practices etc etc etc that you say, "Gee! I really wish that Jesus hadn’t said this (take, for example: divorce and re-marriage), but if He said it, then I must change my views.)

If you have re-configured all that Jesus said to things that meet your fancy, then I propose that what you have done is create a god in your own image. Not conform yourself to Christ.