Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[KSU]

Originally Posted by KSU
I feel about homosexuals just the way Conservative Catholics should, i.e., the way our current-day Peter and the CCC teach me to feel about them. So what?

I wish militant homosexuals were just as tolerant and protective of Church teaching. They are not; in fact they mock it and detest it and commit all sorts of abominations against Her. Their despicable attempts to muddle what Peter has bound on earth (doctrine) are an example of what Christ meant by “the gates of hell.”​

Your response:

Im sorry you feel that way. Not all conservatives feel that way and not all liberals like homosexuals. “Militant homosexuals” are VERY tolerant and PROTECTIVE of Church teachings. MANY OF THEM who follow JESUS in our Beatiful Catholic Faith do in fact serve in the Church as priests and nuns and many as lay people. The cross they carry is much heavier than most people. We have to show compassion to them and encourage those who are far away from the Church to come back to the Lord. THEY ARE IN HEAVEN AS WELL. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALS MY DEAR BROTHER. THE SAME SEX SINFUL ACTS IS WHAT IS WRONG. Please consult and ask your priest or spiritual advisor to guide you on your own issues about HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE. The hard feelings you have for them is not of God. I will pray for you. May God Bless You!!!

je333, if you can’t manage an honest response, please don’t ask any more questions of me. And please don’t put words in my mouth; your above-quoted response bears no relation to my above post. And, seeing how dishonest your straw man tactics are, I don’t want to get into a debate with you about homosexuality.

I told you, and only because you got personal and asked, that with respect to homosexuality I folow the teachings of our Holy Father and the CCC, which of course are one in the same. You replied, “Please consult and ask your priest or spiritual advisor to guide you on your own issues about HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE. The hard feelings you have for them is not of God. I will pray for you. May God Bless You!!!/”

Did you really expect me to honor that sort of creepy response and enter into a debate with you?

.

 

[David_Castlen]

Im sorry you feel that way. Not all conservatives feel that way and not all liberals like homosexuals. “Militant homosexuals” are VERY tolerant and PROTECTIVE of Church teachings. MANY OF THEM who follow JESUS in our Beatiful Catholic Faith do in fact serve in the Church as priests and nuns and many as lay people. The cross they carry is much heavier than most people. We have to show compassion to them and encourage those who are far away from the Church to come back to the Lord. THEY ARE IN HEAVEN AS WELL. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH HOMOSEXUALS MY DEAR BROTHER. THE SAME SEX SINFUL ACTS IS WHAT IS WRONG. Please consult and ask your priest or spiritual advisor to guide you on your own issues about HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE. The hard feelings you have for them is not of God. I will pray for you. May God Bless You!!!

Your response infers that it is natural for one to be a homosexual. Perhaps. But I do not think the Church has pronounced on it. you are right… love in all matters… I sence though that you seem to have an affinity with the militants - and that is very dangerous.

 

[je333]

Your response infers that it is natural for one to be a homosexual. Perhaps. But I do not think the Church has pronounced on it. you are right… love in all matters… I sence though that you seem to have an affinity with the militants - and that is very dangerous.

As Catholics, we are all militants. So homosexual Catholics who serve in Catholic Church are called militant homosexuals against those militant homosexuals outside the Catholic Church.

 

[je333]

Originally Posted by KSU
I feel about homosexuals just the way Conservative Catholics should, i.e., the way our current-day Peter and the CCC teach me to feel about them. So what?

I wish militant homosexuals were just as tolerant and protective of Church teaching. They are not; in fact they mock it and detest it and commit all sorts of abominations against Her. Their despicable attempts to muddle what Peter has bound on earth (doctrine) are an example of what Christ meant by “the gates of hell.”​

Your response:

je333, if you can’t manage an honest response, please don’t ask any more questions of me. And please don’t put words in my mouth; your above-quoted response bears no relation to my above post. And, seeing how dishonest your straw man tactics are, I don’t want to get into a debate with you about homosexuality.

I told you, and only because you got personal and asked, that with respect to homosexuality I folow the teachings of our Holy Father and the CCC, which of course are one in the same. You replied, “Please consult and ask your priest or spiritual advisor to guide you on your own issues about HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE. The hard feelings you have for them is not of God. I will pray for you. May God Bless You!!!/”

Did you really expect me to honor that sort of creepy response and enter into a debate with you?
.

Homosexuality is a sin. But homosexuals are people who might or may not follow Jesus. Many of them practice chastity as all of us are called do and serve in Catholic Church. Holy Father and CCC? Maybe I didn’t understand. Please explain…

 

[KSU]

Per je333: " Holy Father and CCC? Maybe I didn’t understand. Please explain… "

OK, here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749 It’s a “Sticky” for the Social Justice Forum, and it’s what Conservative (i.e., authentic) Catholics believe.

CCC=Catechism of the Catholic Church.

 

[je333]

Per je333: " Holy Father and CCC? Maybe I didn’t understand. Please explain… "

OK, here: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749 It’s a “Sticky” for the Social Justice Forum, and it’s what Conservative (i.e., authentic) Catholics believe.

CCC=Catechism of the Catholic Church.

“homosexual acts,” “homosexual tendencies,” “homosexual unions,” - they all mean homosexuality.

I also believe in the CCC teachings. My dear brother in Jesus Christ homosexual act(s) and homosexuality means the same. In “homosexual acts,” “homosexual tendencies,” “homosexual unions,”, the word homosexual is used in adjective form which also mean same sex. Just like describing when i say red rose. Red is an adjective. On your older posts, you post concerns on HOMOSEXUALS as people. As Christians, we always distinguish actions from persons. We hate the action but we love the person. Do you understand what I am saying? For example if you have a brother or a sister who is obnoxious and bugs you all the time, as Christians, we shouldn’t say I hate my brother because he bugs me. Instead, we should say, I hate the obnosiousness of my brother but i still love him… it is the action that we hate not the person. Maybe you can ask your instructor in your class or someone to help you understand.

Not a sticky subject in my opinion. it needs to be posted and exposed and discussed. thanks for posting.

 

[je333]

Your response infers that it is natural for one to be a homosexual. Perhaps. But I do not think the Church has pronounced on it. you are right… love in all matters… I sence though that you seem to have an affinity with the militants - and that is very dangerous.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authored by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger:
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:
Quote:
…Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.
…
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
The document then proceeds to give reasons supporting the Catholic position.

 

[je333]

Your response infers that it is natural for one to be a homosexual. Perhaps. But I do not think the Church has pronounced on it. you are right… love in all matters… I sence though that you seem to have an affinity with the militants - and that is very dangerous.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authored by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger:
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:
Quote:
…Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.
…
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

 

[David_Castlen]

As Catholics, we are all militants. So homosexual Catholics who serve in Catholic Church are called militant homosexuals against those militant homosexuals outside the Catholic Church.

**1. God bless you, but you are being ambiguous. How do you define “militant”? do you mean aggressive? forceful? what do you mean? Surely, you are not equivacating? Please help?

1. And do you agree that the Church has not pronounced on homosexual tendancies as being or not being natural?/**

 

[David_Castlen]

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, authored by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger:
Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:
Quote:
…Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”. This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”. They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity. The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered” and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.
…
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Thank you JE.

 

[je333]

Thank you JE.

You are very welcome…:

 

[fostersmom67]

I have been scratching my head over why Catholics and Jews vote for Liberals!!! I cannot in good faith vote for anyone who CONDONES partial birth abortion for any reason. The person in the white house did exactly that. Not a friend for Conserative Christians!!! I also don’t agree with the church with their views on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. They offer plenty of legal help for immigration issues BUT really offers little when it comes to restoring our faith with ancestor help. The Catholic Church does amazing things for folks that have very little BUT I don’t agree with some issues as you can see. God Bless and have a great day!

 

[KSU]

I have been scratching my head over why Catholics and Jews vote for Liberals!!! I cannot in good faith vote for anyone who CONDONES partial birth abortion for any reason. The person in the white house did exactly that. Not a friend for Conserative Christians!!! I also don’t agree with the church with their views on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. They offer plenty of legal help for immigration issues BUT really offers little when it comes to restoring our faith with ancestor help. The Catholic Church does amazing things for folks that have very little BUT I don’t agree with some issues as you can see. God Bless and have a great day!

Those Catholics who stay in the Church and vote for supporters of European-Socialism, abortion and all the related “culture of death” activities are not authentic Catholics. Many second, third and fourth generation Catholic-Americans have their cultural roots in the old Democrat Party because of that Party’s immigrant-friendly (i.e., vote buying) positions. Therefore, they still vote Democrat, just like their parents, grandparents and great grandparents, and stay in the Church even though they have lost their faith. It’s no mystery.

Jews who vote likewise however ARE a mystery. Even Conservative Jewish friends tell me they don’t know why Liberal Jews long ago adopted a European style Socialist philosophy. I have my own opinion, but this is not the thread for that issue.

You say, " I also don’t agree with the church with their views on ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION." My guess is that you most certainly would agree with the Church if you ever looked beyond the politically correct/parishioner-hungry opinions–and that’s all they are, opinions–of some bishops and the embarrassingly secularist ring leaders of the USCCB staff. Again, this is not the thread for debates on that topic.

 

[BlueDogMN]

Duck everyone… more mud! It seems that there is an 8th Gift of the Holy Spirit that I have never heard of… The “gift” of condemnation… It would be so nice to hear more efforts of conversion\evangalization and not so much condemnation. I will not follow “people” with an opinion and internet access as they re-define Catholic Social Teaching; nor will I follow those who so blindly pick and choose which parts they agree with or not. Perhaps they should sit in the down in front of the Blessed Sacrament and discern how they can help change lives to be more “authentic” rather than spend all their time labeling sheep & goats.

 

[David_Castlen]

Duck everyone… more mud! It seems that there is an 8th Gift of the Holy Spirit that I have never heard of… The “gift” of condemnation… It would be so nice to hear more efforts of conversion\evangalization and not so much condemnation. I will not follow “people” with an opinion and internet access as they re-define Catholic Social Teaching; nor will I follow those who so blindly pick and choose which parts they agree with or not. Perhaps they should sit in the down in front of the Blessed Sacrament and discern how they can help change lives to be more “authentic” rather than spend all their time labeling sheep & goats.

Is there condemnation within this blog that is of a particular person (sin), or is there condemnation of particular beliefs and actions (a good)? I suppose, I am not following this blog as close as I should. I mention that because I have not seen names like Kennedy or Sean Hannity.

 

[KSU]

foster(name removed by moderator)67, the following is a relevant-to-your post portion of a Q&A with Archbishop Charles Chaput. It was aired August 15, 2006 on the PBS NEWSHOUR program:
"CHARLES CHAPUT: …Breaking the law is never appropriate. And being an illegal alien is not good for the person who breaks the law, nor is it good for our country. It’s a dangerous way to live. And to have a group in our society that isn’t legal undermines the common good, too.

“So the church is not in favor of illegal immigration. The church is not in favor of breaking the law. The church is in favor of changing the laws so that they work, they make sense, and that they serve the common good and everyone’s dignity.”

That, foster(name removed by moderator)67, is a core social justice position of the Church. The entire position of the Church can be summed up as follows: People have no right to illegally immigrate merely to better their standard of living at the expense of people in host countries, especially if the latter are struggling economically and unable to sustain illegal immigration. However, people who can’t survive in their own countries have a right to immigrate in accordance with just laws of the host countries. Illegal immigrants also have the right to dignity and the sacraments while they are in an illegal status, but not to illegal protection.

You won’t hear this from Liberals who stay in the Church, and who, unfortunately, are permitted to muddle the true position of the Church under the guise of social justice, mostly for their own political reasons. Their major political objective, as any freshman student of politics knows, is to allow in as many illegal immigrants as possible and grant them amnesty with the right to vote. Obviously, those immigrants are going to vote for Liberals, which will ensure their perpetual control of the congress, the presidency and the courts–a tour de force for European style Socialism, where, BTW, the Roman Catholic Church is reduced to irrelevancy or even outlawed for “hate crimes” and discrimination against homosexuality, women who want to be priests, etc.

That is why many Liberals stay in the Church. It is not to say that all “Catholic” Liberals are so motivated; some are mainly good-hearted dupes who are ignorant of what is going on.

, the following is a relevant-to-your post portion of a Q&A with Archbishop Charles Chaput. It was aired August 15, 2006 on the PBS NEWSHOUR program:
"CHARLES CHAPUT: …Breaking the law is never appropriate. And being an illegal alien is not good for the person who breaks the law, nor is it good for our country. It’s a dangerous way to live. And to have a group in our society that isn’t legal undermines the common good, too.

“So the church is not in favor of illegal immigration. The church is not in favor of breaking the law. The church is in favor of changing the laws so that they work, they make sense, and that they serve the common good and everyone’s dignity.”

That is a core position of the Church. The entire position of the Church can be summed up as follows: People have no right to illegally immigrate merely to better their standard of living at the expense of people in host countries, especially if the latter are struggling economically and unable to sustain illegal immigration. However, people who can’t survive in their own countries have a right to immigrate in accordance with just laws of the host countries. Illegal immigrants also have the right to dignity and the sacraments while they are in an illegal status, but not to illegal protection.

You won’t hear this from Liberals who stay in the Church, and who, unfortunately, are permitted to muddle the true position of the Church under the guise of dignity and social justice, mostly for their own political reasons. Their major political objective, as any freshman student of politics knows, is to allow in as many illegal immigrants as possible and grant them amnesty with the right to vote. Obviously, those immigrants are going to vote for Liberals, which will ensure their perpetual control of the congress, the presidency and the courts–a tour de force for European style Socialism, where, BTW, the Church is reduced to irrelevancy or even outlawed for “hate crimes” and discrimination against homosexuality, women who want to be priests, etc.

That is why many Liberals stay in the Church. It is not to say that all “Catholic” Liberals are so motivated; some are mainly good-hearted dupes who are mainly ignorant of what is going on.

The Vatican, thank God, quietly is beginning to order a crackdown on Liberals in the Church, and calling for a new evangelization before it’s too late.

 

[kama3]

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

My problem with infallibility is that I believe in Objective, Discoverable Truth.

So if one defines infallibility as a charism of being able to proclaim the objective truth, then I simply do not agree with that. Because I can list at least three examples of a “infallible” papal declaration declaring certain belief as heretical, where said belief later turned out to be objectively true (heliocentrism, Darwinism, single progenitor pair). Clearly, in such cases, these were the heretics who had the Objective Truth, not the Pope. (Side note: this is not intended to mean that the whole religion is false. The falsified statements have no impact on the validity of the core dogmas.)

So, if there multiple are historical examples of Vatican disagreeing with the Objective Truth, then one cannot assume that a random “infallible” statement from Vatican automatically represents the Objective Truth. Especially if the statement has no relation to, and cannot be inferred from, the core teachings. Priest celibacy would be a good example – it is a result of practical considerations from the Middle Ages and directly contradicts St. Paul’s instructions for early churches.

Which brings me to…

The Holy Spirit operates through all baptized individuals–that is the ontological nature of the sacraments.

Actually, I didn’t know that. I was under impression that were are supposed to believe that the Pope has a direct phone line to God (figuratively of course).

Anyway, since the Holy Spirit operates through all baptized individuals, then this would include “renegade” theologians like, say, Hans Kung. That leads to an interesting question. If a renegade theologian says one thing and Vatican says the other, how do we know which one is in error?

Because there are instances where dissenting argumentation holds more water than that from Vatican.

Are you an ex-Catholic?

Catholic after a major faith crisis, which has forced me to critically re-evaluate what I believe in. My present position is weak agnosticism.

(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.)

Completely agree on that, but I will not share the horror stories (Related quote from a very smart priest: I’ve never seen someone loose faith because of atheist propaganda, but I have seen people loose faith in droves because of bad preaching.)

 

[KSU]

MY POST #531 WAS SENT IN ERROR. HERE IS THE CORRECT POST:

foster(name removed by moderator)67, the following is a relevant-to-your post portion of a Q&A with Archbishop Charles Chaput. It was aired August 15, 2006 on the PBS NEWSHOUR program:
"CHARLES CHAPUT: …Breaking the law is never appropriate. And being an illegal alien is not good for the person who breaks the law, nor is it good for our country. It’s a dangerous way to live. And to have a group in our society that isn’t legal undermines the common good, too.

“So the church is not in favor of illegal immigration. The church is not in favor of breaking the law. The church is in favor of changing the laws so that they work, they make sense, and that they serve the common good and everyone’s dignity.”

That, foster(name removed by moderator)67, is a core social justice position of the Church. The entire position can be summed up as follows: People have no right to illegally immigrate merely to better their standard of living at the expense of people in host countries, especially if the latter are struggling economically and unable to sustain illegal immigration. However, people who can’t survive in their own countries have a right to immigrate in accordance with just laws of the host countries. Illegal immigrants also have the right to dignity and the sacraments while they are in an illegal status, but not to illegal protection.

You won’t hear this from Liberals who stay in the Church, and who, unfortunately, are permitted to muddle the true position of the Church under the guise of social justice, mostly for their own political reasons. A major political objective, as any freshman student of politics knows, is to allow in as many illegal immigrants as possible and grant them amnesty with the right to vote. Obviously, those immigrants are going to vote for Liberals, which will ensure their perpetual control of the congress, the presidency and the courts–a tour de force for European style Socialism, where, ironically, the Roman Catholic Church would be reduced to irrelevancy or even outlawed for “hate crimes” and discrimination against homosexuality, women who want to be priests, etc.

That is why many Liberals stay in the Church. It is not to say that all “Catholic” Liberals are so motivated; some are mainly good-hearted dupes who are more or less ignorant of what is going on.

The Vatican, thank God, quietly is beginning to order a crackdown on Liberals in the Church, and calling for a new evangelization before it’s too late.

 

[kama3]

Your statement

[The Church does not agree to] allow in as many illegal immigrants as possible and grant them amnesty with the right to vote.

contradicts the underlined part of your quote:

“So the church is not in favor of illegal immigration. The church is not in favor of breaking the law. The church is in favor of changing the laws so that they work, they make sense, and that they serve the common good and everyone’s dignity.”

I’m sorry to break it to you, but the American immigration laws do not make sense.

Or, actually – they do make sense if you intend to create a large social underclass of people who work, but are stripped of basic rights. They do this beautifully.

A simple fact is that if these people were an actual liability to the US economy, they would have been hunted down, rounded up and deported long time ago. They are still there, so apparently they are an asset. Having been to U.S. twice, I believe that your economy would simply collapse without them.

a tour de force for European style Socialism, where, BTW, the Roman Catholic Church is reduced to irrelevancy or even outlawed for “hate crimes” and discrimination against homosexuality, women who want to be priests, etc.

Slippery slope. And I have yet to see the Church made illegal in Europe because of Socialism. (It is on a good track to be made illegal in Ireland, but the problem there is of its own making.)

 

[KSU]

kama3, you are incorrect, nothing in my post #531 is contradictory. You made up a false quote, viz: “[The Church does not agree to] allow in as many illegal immigrants as possible and grant them amnesty with the right to vote.”) and then said it contradicted a quote from the Archbishop. Nice!

Continuing on with your MO, you say “I’m sorry to break it to you, but the American immigration laws do not make sense.” I never said they did. Please debate without making up things I’ve said.

Again, you say, “And I have yet to see the Church made illegal in Europe because of Socialism”, as though that’s what I said. What I actually said is ,"…a tour de force for European style Socialism, where, BTW, the Church is reduced to irrelevancy or even outlawed for ‘hate crimes’ and discrimination against homosexuality, women who want to be priests, etc."

Do you understand the difference between text book Socialism and the anti-Catholic horrors that eventually result in the actual practice of Socialisim? See for starters the USSR, Nazi Germany, China, North Korea, Viet Nam, and countries with Islamic law (which as you probably know are Socialist in nature). Take even Canada for an example closer to home: catholicexchange.com/2008/06/04/112780/

“Catholic” Socialists have a good thing going when they are able to stay in the Church and use its resources. Socialism, according to Pope Pius XI, can never be reconciled with true Catholicism:

tfpstudentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/radical-marxist-priest-ernesto-cardenal-to-speak-at-xavier-u-catholic-students-ask-why.html