Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Ahimsa]

Why do Catholics stay in the Church when they disagree with basic teachings?

1, They have close family and/or cultural ties.

1. They have managed to remain comfortable in the Church while disagreeing with it. Many believe that they can do this. One Italian-American friend put it this way to me:“Our father told us when we were kids that the Church taught certain things with which he disagreed, but don’t worry if that happens to you. Doctrine isn’t all that important. The Church can and does serve important psychological and sociological needs, while its doctrines and some of its practices are archaic and can be ignored.”

3.** Another active Catholic says she tried to leave the Church but after parochial schooling she found herself emotionally tied to the Church.** Her children have left, she added, and that doesn’t bother her as long as her grandchildren were baptized. Cultural tradition more than religious faith.

1. **The Church may be primitive in much of what it teaches, but some are deeply involved in and committed to its programs to feed the hungry, achieve social justice, oppose stupid wars, etc. **They don’t want the Church to be taken over by neanderthals who focus most of their attention on correct doctrine and cultic loyalty but have little interest in a better society. Some both admire John Paul II and Benedict XVI while worrying that under them the leadership of the Church has moved dangerously to the right.

These are good reasons to stay in the Church. Do you think any of these are good reasons to join the Church?

 

[dontknow]

Why do Catholics stay in the Church when they disagree with basic teachings?

  1, **They have close family and/or cultural ties.**

1. They have managed to remain comfortable in the Church while disagreeing with it. Many believe that they can do this. One Italian-American friend put it this way to me:“Our father told us when we were kids that the Church taught certain things with which he disagreed, but don’t worry if that happens to you. Doctrine isn’t all that important. The Church can and does serve important psychological and sociological needs, while its doctrines and some of its practices are archaic and can be ignored.”
   
   3.** Another active Catholic says she tried to leave the Church but after parochial schooling she found herself emotionally tied to the Church.** Her children have left, she added, and that doesn’t bother her as long as her grandchildren were baptized. Cultural tradition more than religious faith.
   1. **The Church may be primitive in much of what it teaches, but some are deeply involved in and committed to its programs to feed the hungry, achieve social justice, oppose stupid wars, etc. **They don’t want the Church to be taken over by neanderthals who focus most of their attention on correct doctrine and cultic loyalty but have little interest in a better society. Some both admire John Paul II and Benedict XVI while worrying that under them the leadership of the Church has moved dangerously to the right.

I find this to be true. Even for me some of this is applicable.

 

[kama3]

A heretic is a person who has been taught and embraced the Truth, then willfully and obdurately rejects that Truth.

That would be a completely fine statement if it used the word Doctrine instead of Truth.
How does one know that the Church teaching is the objective Truth? The doctrine of infallibility is an exercise in circular logic: the Pope is infallible, because he say so, and he is infallible.

Humane vitae is a textbook example. There is enough irregularity in how it was promulgated, enough theological dissent and enough examples of it going against common sense to seriously entertain the notion that it is wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

That would be a completely fine statement if it used the word Doctrine instead of Truth.

Fair enough.

How does one know that the Church teaching is the objective Truth? The doctrine of infallibility is an exercise in circular logic: the Pope is infallible, because he say so, and he is infallible.

Actually we prove the dogma of infallibility from the Scriptures.

The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”

 

[IrishRush]

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.

kkmousse, try seeing that statement from this perspective:
If you saw someone take a child and prepare to execute them, wouldn’t you step up and say, “Stop! This is wrong!”? How is abortion different? Because you cannot actually see the child with your own eyes? Why is it the right of the mother to kill her unborn child, but not her child present before her? And what about the consequences to the child? Who will deal with that?
I used to feel this way too, that each individual had to deal with their own conscience and make their own choices, and answer to God when the time came. But after seeing the 180 video, my eyes were really opened about the fallacy of that stance. If you haven’t seen that video, I would strongly recommend it.

This is off topic but I felt a compulsion to respond to this part of your post. FWIW.

 

[kama3]

Actually we prove the dogma of infallibility from the Scriptures.

First, all that demonstrates is that infallibility is not contradicted by the Scripture, but it’s a far cry for proving it. Especially considering that infallibility (as formally defined) is a recent invention. If Jesus intended the Pope to be infallible, the Scripture would have contained an explicit statement to this end.

Second, the notion that Church never persisted in a doctrinal error is false. In 1664 in Alexander VII promulgated Index Librorum which condemned heliocentrism as heretical.
An argument has been advanced in The Pontifical Decrees Against the Movement of the Earth and Ultramontane Defense of Them that the 1664 promulgation of does, in fact, pass the Vatican I criteria for infallibility (despite being demonstrably false). A lot of counter points has been made to this, arguing that this is not the case. What these arguments miss is that even if Alexander’s bull was not infallible de iure (i.e does not fulfill the criteria set by Vatican I), the condemnation has been adhered to by the Church members at large – hence, the Church at large persisted in a de facto doctrinal error until at least 1757.

Third, Humani Generis (promulgated after the present definition of infallibility) contains a statement that: the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. This statement has pretty much been falsified by modern molecular genetics, which shows that although all humans do have a common ancestor, this ancestor lived among the population of several thousand other humans – i.e. he had parents, brothers, sistes, cousins etc. (And so after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him) Humans show too much genetic diversity to be descended from one individual only. It will be interesting to watch how this matter will turn out in the coming years.

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

But where does it say that the Holy Spirit will exclusively communicate with the Vatican?
If the Vatican produced infallible statements which have turned out to be false, you have to consider the notion that the Holy Spirit may be operating through other individuals.

The track record so far suggests that although the errors tend to be eventually reversed (which we can ascribe to the actions of Holy Spirit), the Church may persist in error for tens of years. Which – to get back on topic – is why a liberal can remain a member of the Church. Treating the church as fallible, he can assume that the Church will one day change the teaching to conform to his views.

 

[Elizabeth502]

In 1664 in Alexander VII promulgated Index Librorum which condemned heliocentrism as heretical. *[snip…] *

From Forum Rules:

**Guidelines
For both Catholic and non-Catholic posters: **

Bringing up historical controversies peculiar to a particular religion should be done cautiously
It is acceptable to discuss the effect the incident had on current policy or practice.
It is acceptable to seek the truth vs. commonly-held beliefs or conventional wisdom about actual events.
**It is fallacious reasoning to use embarrassing incidents to claim that they “prove” a particular religion is false. **

 

[PRmerger]

Especially considering that infallibility (as** formally defined**) is a recent invention.

What was solemnly pronounced, declared and formally defined at certain point of time** is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.**

Take this analogy:
It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.

Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 2-11 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and** formally define **exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )

At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and formally define exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and** formally defining** a standard norm of our family.

For example, the solemn declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not newly formed in 1854. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 1854 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.

However, this dogma was ancient, dating back to the times of the apostles. As is the dogma of the infallibility of the Church/Magisterium.

 

[PRmerger]

First, all that demonstrates is that infallibility is not contradicted by the Scripture, but it’s a far cry for proving it.

That, kama, is a huge admission. :extrahappy:

It is good to see you acknowledge that the dogma of infallibility does not contradict the Scriptures.

If Jesus intended the Pope to be infallible, the Scripture would have contained an explicit statement to this end.

What Scripture verse says that Scripture must contain explicit statements about our theology? Chapter and verse, please.

I don’t think I’ve ever read that in a single page of Scripture.

[SIGN1]Not a single page.[/SIGN1]

One would think something so stridently proclaimed by proponents of this paradigm would at least have 2 verses that say this. And, naturally, it ought to be an “explicit statement” that supports this paradigm that “Scripture must contain explicit statements that support one’s theology”.

But explicit, or implicit, nary a word about Scriptures having to declare our beliefs explicitly.

 

[PRmerger]

But where does it say that the Holy Spirit will exclusively communicate with the Vatican?

Perhaps you are under the misapprehension that the Catholic Church proclaims that “the Holy Spirit will exclusively communicate with the Vatican?”

If the Vatican produced infallible statements which have turned out to be false, you have to consider the notion that the Holy Spirit may be operating through other individuals.

You seem to be quite misinformed about Catholicism, kama. Are you an ex-Catholic? (No need to answer this personal question. Just a rhetorical. Anyway, if I am correct, your catechesis was abysmal, and most likely it was not your fault. The Church did an dismal job providing nourishing truth to its flock back in the day.)

The Holy Spirit operates through all baptized individuals–that is the ontological nature of the sacraments. Surely you were aware of that, yes?

Because the Holy Spirit is the anointing of Christ, it is Christ who, as the head of the Body, pours out the Spirit among his members to nourish, heal, and organize them in their mutual functions, to give them life, send them to bear witness, and associate them to his self-offering to the Father and to his intercession for the whole world. Through the Church’s sacraments, Christ communicates his Holy and sanctifying Spirit to the members of his Body. CCC739

Treating the church as fallible, he can assume that the Church will one day change the teaching to conform to his views.

And that, my friend, is the essence of creating a god in one’s own image.

 

[tbcrawford]

The attitudes and behaviour of some posters here at CAF not just on this thread but on many gives catholicism a bad name.

God is love.

Let us display our faith with love and charity.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta “the best sermons are those without words”.

Our actions of love and care for one another, helping the needy,loving our enemy, praying for everyone and much more display our catholicism.

Sometimes I read posters here at CAF and do not recognise any Christianity let alone Catholicism.

Let us learn to be humble,to follow the teachings Jesus Himself taught us.Let us not bring disrepute to His Holy Church.

May God bless and guide each of us on our path.

 

[PRmerger]

The attitudes and behaviour of some posters here at CAF not just on this thread but on many gives catholicism a bad name.

I’ve reviewed the last several pages on this thread and cannot find a single incidence of any post that would give Catholicism a bad name.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta “the best sermons are those without words”.

While I certainly don’t disagree with Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, that is a peculiar comment to post on a forum.

How else are we to evangelize on a Forum,* whose essence is words, *without, well, using words?

 

[tbcrawford]

I’ve reviewed the last several pages on this thread and cannot find a single incidence of any post that would give Catholicism a bad name.



While I certainly don’t disagree with Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, that is a peculiar comment to post on a forum.

How else are we to evangelize on a Forum,* whose essence is words, *without, well, using words?

I think your ‘tone’ explains beautifully what I was trying to convey.May God bless you and give you humility

 

[PRmerger]

I think your ‘tone’ explains beautifully what I was trying to convey.May God bless you and give you humility

These words of yours are not very charitable, I’m afraid, Teresa.

Which is especially egregious in light of your very own words here:

The attitudes and behaviour of some posters here at CAF not just on this thread but on many gives catholicism a bad name.

God is love.

Let us display our faith with love and charity.

Blessed Teresa of Calcutta “the best sermons are those without words”.

Our actions of love and care for one another, helping the needy,loving our enemy, praying for everyone and much more display our catholicism.

Sometimes I read posters here at CAF and do not recognise any Christianity let alone Catholicism.

Let us learn to be humble,to follow the teachings Jesus Himself taught us.Let us not bring disrepute to His Holy Church.

May God bless and guide each of us on our path.

 

[Listener]

I remember that back when John Kennedy was president, it was more normal for a Catholic to be a Democrat rather than a Republican.

So I guess you could just as well ask, “Why don’t conservatives leave the Church?”

 

[MontChevalier]

I remember that back when John Kennedy was president, it was more normal for a Catholic to be a Democrat rather than a Republican.

So I guess you could just as well ask, “Why don’t conservatives leave the Church?”

I believe Kennedy was a liar. A Catholic who puts his country first is no Catholic at all. And anyone who shakes the hand of the Pope rather than kiss it is showing obvious signs of evil interest.

Conservative Catholics wish to maintain the Church from falling into the evils of Liberalism; which involves abortion, homosexuality and women-priests. This is all completely against what the church teaches.

-MontChevalier

 

[KSU]

“Sometimes I read posters here at CAF and do not recognize any Christianity let alone Catholicism.” tbcrawford

Me, too, but just because those folks are liberals and non-Catholics we can’t very well just tell them to not post here.

Anyway, the OP asked about why liberals stay in the Church. I think there are three major reasons.

First, some liberals are very good at using the right Catholic-sounding words while they try to change the Church into a “tolerant and welcoming” church which, with other people’s money, of course, will exhibit Christian love and compassion for the “community”, even if it results in a little financial support to promoters of abortion, homosexuality, contraception and “organizing” the vote for unions and like-minded politicians. Where else can liberal Catholics find a fulfilling deal like that, and maybe even draw a pay check for themselves while they are at it? The spiritual stuff? Well, sure (except for that cannibalism thing), but we all know that Jesus was all about helping our neighbor, first and foremost, not about “imposing our morality on others.”

A second group of liberals stays in the Church to destroy it from within, e.g., Catholics For a Free Choice, Socialists, Call To Action, etc. Personally, I just can’t get enough of those silver-haired, lesbian nuns who interpret the mass for us by dancing around Lilith’s table of plenty with sheaves of wheat.

A third group of liberal Catholics were raised in the Church, but know better than that “senile bunch of old men” in Rome when it comes to sex. So they ignore Rome and continue to call themselves Catholics. Even though they never see the inside of a confessional, they can’t wait to dress up, throw some Cheerios in a bag for the kids, grab grandma and clog every Christmas mass in town. They won’t be seen again until they get to clog Easter mass.

But, seriously, Jesus told us the Parable Of The Weeds to explain why we can’t just throw the liberals out. It’s His Church, after all, and He said a lot of other things that makes even me pray for them–while I do all I can to stop their post-VC II destruction of His Church. Remember what He did to the money changers.

 

[Roy5]

MontChevalier

 This idea that a president should put his loyalty to Catholicism and the Pope above one's loyalty to the country is the argument nervous Protestants and others used against Al Smith and JFK in the past. Catholics who feel this way might consider going to a country where Catholic principles are enforced by the state. Are there such nations today? I can't think of any, though possibly a country in Latin America or a place like Malta may fit the bill??? Places like Italy, Ireland, Spain and even Poland, once ardently Catholic, seem to have strayed. The last place that may have fit this pattern was Franco's dictatorship in Spain. Do we want the USA to imitate that? 

  It interests me that the most conservative areas of the USA are in the deep South where Catholics generally are a small minority (except Louisiana) and evangelical Protestants dominate. Here in the northeast, where Catholicism is so strong, you find the greatest support for gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. This never ceases to amaze me. Doesn't it suggest that Catholicism has very little impact upon millions of those it numbers among its communicants?

 

[KSU]

"Doesn’t it suggest that Catholicism has very little impact upon millions of those it numbers among its communicants? "

You have it backwards: it’s those non-authentic Catholics who number themselves as Catholics.

 

[MontChevalier]

MontChevalier

 This idea that a president should put his loyalty to Catholicism and the Pope above one's loyalty to the country is the argument nervous Protestants and others used against Al Smith and JFK in the past. Catholics who feel this way might consider going to a country where Catholic principles are enforced by the state. Are there such nations today? I can't think of any, though possibly a country in Latin America or a place like Malta may fit the bill??? Places like Italy, Ireland, Spain and even Poland, once ardently Catholic, seem to have strayed. The last place that may have fit this pattern was Franco's dictatorship in Spain. Do we want the USA to imitate that? 

  It interests me that the most conservative areas of the USA are in the deep South where Catholics generally are a small minority (except Louisiana) and evangelical Protestants dominate. Here in the northeast, where Catholicism is so strong, you find the greatest support for gay marriage, abortion rights, etc. This never ceases to amaze me. Doesn't it suggest that Catholicism has very little impact upon millions of those it numbers among its communicants?

I’m afraid you have something incorrect here. Catholicism is the religion with the highest percentage of Christians in the US. Catholicism is strong, not just in the north-east, but in the South-east, South and the South-west. Simply look it up.

If Catholicism has so little impact on the lives of people, then I think I’m correct in how they don’t belong in the Church at all, but in the fires of hell.

-MontChevalier