Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Elizabeth502]

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

Not making subjective sense to you, or to other individuals, does not in itself justify law-breaking, including in other social justice areas.

For example, in some not particularly wealthy cities, expensive parking meters, or expensive public transportation, is needed to access certain social service agencies which are only located in particular areas of the city where these high fees are charged. But only people without such disposable income (and who reside elsewhere, in areas of lower rents and property taxes) have need for such social services. Like some aspects of the immigration process, this also “makes no sense.”

The appropriate response to such an objective social injustice is for sincere, caring people to contribute to some donation fund to supply dedicated meters, and/or to lobby the City for a different meter rate for such dedicated meters, and/or to gather names of those who might be available to chauffeur such needy people downtown. All these responses are both legal and moral, and do not contradict the Fourth Commandment, while demonstrating active compassion for the poor.

An immoral response would be for such poor individuals to destroy or incapacitate the parking meters to “correct” the injustice (to break the law).

There are other mega-responses as well, in which authorities could move the physical locations of social service agencies, and/or ‘shortcut’ the process, and individuals concerned about social justice could participate morally by lobbying such officials to do such things.

I draw out the parallel only to show that the same concepts apply to immigration. Social injustices precipitated in and by other countries and their local conditions are not legitimately “reversed” by wholesale disregard of laws within a different sovereign country.

 

[KSU]

Per kama3: “… 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).”

No, kama3, you most certainly cannot, because there never were or could be such papal declarations. You seem to want to attack the Church and Catholic posters here with things you simply make up. Why do you even post here if you have nothing to offer but falsehoods to discredit the Church?

Friend, if you hang around to learn about Catholicism, welcome, but that doesn’t seem to be your motivation.

 

[BlueDogMN]

A label of “Legal” or “Illegal” does not define justice. In any case something labled as “legal” does not make it a just act, likewise label of “illegal” does not mean it is “unjust”. If that anaology were true for “illegal” immigration; then by all means we should still be arresting African Americans for eating in Whites Only sections of restaurants. Their sit in was an “illegal” act but done to serve a just outcome. Likewise “illegal” immagrants who are here working to provide for thier families are not doing anything wrong. Survival is not is not un-just; there is dignity in work. Those who are here to cause problems, sell drugs, commit other crimes, etc do not care what label you give them. The same would be true labels of liberal or conservative. Those lables do not equate to justice.

 

[Elizabeth502]

If that anaology were true for “illegal” immigration; then by all means we should still be arresting African Americans for eating in Whites Only sections of restaurants.

The possibility of equating illegal immigration with civil disobedience was discussed on another thread, and a convincing argument was not made. It is not a parallel situation, because of the object/location of the “disobedience” in this case, which is not the U.S. as the precipitator of injustice for those immigrating, but the policies, corruption, and greed in various Latin American countries from which the immigration is occurring. The object of the activism and the setting of the activism is part of the category of civil disobedience.

No, legality and justice are not interchangeable terms, but neither is illegality and justice, and when illegality results in injustice to others (which it often does with illegal immigration to the U.S.), there is no moral ‘trade’ which can be justified in Catholic moral theology. (One social injustice does not morally ratify a different social injustice.)

 

[estesbob]

A label of “Legal” or “Illegal” does not define justice. In any case something labled as “legal” does not make it a just act, likewise label of “illegal” does not mean it is “unjust”. If that anaology were true for “illegal” immigration; then by all means we should still be arresting African Americans for eating in Whites Only sections of restaurants. Their sit in was an “illegal” act but done to serve a just outcome. Likewise “illegal” immagrants who are here working to provide for thier families are not doing anything wrong. Survival is not is not un-just; there is dignity in work. Those who are here to cause problems, sell drugs, commit other crimes, etc do not care what label you give them. The same would be true labels of liberal or conservative. Those lables do not equate to justice.

But the terms do describe what is legal and what is illegal. Those who came to this country illegally are illegal aliens. You cant say they are doing nothing “wrong”. The Church most certainly agrees countries have the right to secure their borders.

 

[RobbyS]

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…

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.

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

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.)

The papacy never ruled infallibly that heliocentrism was a heresy. Only that Sr. Galileo was a popinjay who spoke out of turn. I suggest you do more reading about the history of science in the 16th Century. Galileo, following Copernicus and others, uncovered data that led him to conclusions that were partly correct and partly not, and many merely speculative. Some of his defenders seem to forget that he was far from producing anything as conclusive as “Principia Mathematica,” was in fact far more a sketch than a complete picture. His opponents at the time, which included many churchmen, were trying to defend a false view, but one that was not yet in sight. As late as the 1680s, the rather fantastical views of Dsecartes, were stlll widely held by the scientific community, and Newton’s publication was ever bit as shocking to scientific opinion as Einstein’s was was two hundred years later. In short, Galileo was proved right but not be the facts in evidence at the time if his trial. The jury was not willing to see things his way.=, and not only the Church.

 

[BlueDogMN]

The Church most certainly agrees countries have the right to secure their borders.

I most certainly agree with the church too. It is however not the “illegal” person we should be targeting rather the cause for their migration; which is much larger as suggested. The threads on this and many other topics in Catholic forums seems to suggest that we not only secure our borders but make access to our country an impermeable barrier. This thread (and others) seem to suggest the more and more Catholics are wanting to secure the doors to our church in the same manner. Our efforts of conversion both inwardly and outwardly need not be exclusive. We should welcome the sinner, the homeless, the addicts, the “illegal” aliens, the prostitutes, the homosexual, the murderer, the … to experience salvation through the sacred tradition of the church. The church is not the place of self-proclaimed righteous; rather it is for those who are suffering, struggling and wanting to live a life capable of accepting our Saviour’s redeeming grace. The exclusive church that some seem to promote would be a very lonely and cold place.

 

[David_Castlen]

I most certainly agree with the church too. It is however not the “illegal” person we should be targeting rather the cause for their migration; which is much larger as suggested. The threads on this and many other topics in Catholic forums seems to suggest that we not only secure our borders but make access to our country an impermeable barrier. This thread (and others) seem to suggest the more and more Catholics are wanting to secure the doors to our church in the same manner. Our efforts of conversion both inwardly and outwardly need not be exclusive. We should welcome the sinner, the homeless, the addicts, the “illegal” aliens, the prostitutes, the homosexual, the murderer, the … to experience salvation through the sacred tradition of the church. The church is not the place of self-proclaimed righteous; rather it is for those who are suffering, struggling and wanting to live a life capable of accepting our Saviour’s redeeming grace. The exclusive church that some seem to promote would be a very lonely and cold place.

Amen Amen Amen:thumbsup: But you are not suggesting that if they commit sins, say homosexual acts, they be allowed to have communion, are you? God bless you brother

 

[estesbob]

I most certainly agree with the church too. It is however not the “illegal” person we should be targeting rather the cause for their migration; which is much larger as suggested. The threads on this and many other topics in Catholic forums seems to suggest that we not only secure our borders but make access to our country an impermeable barrier. This thread (and others) seem to suggest the more and more Catholics are wanting to secure the doors to our church in the same manner. Our efforts of conversion both inwardly and outwardly need not be exclusive. We should welcome the sinner, the homeless, the addicts, the “illegal” aliens, the prostitutes, the homosexual, the murderer, the … to experience salvation through the sacred tradition of the church. The church is not the place of self-proclaimed righteous; rather it is for those who are suffering, struggling and wanting to live a life capable of accepting our Saviour’s redeeming grace. The exclusive church that some seem to promote would be a very lonely and cold place.

Supporting secure borders is not advocating an “exclusive” Church nor can it be equated with not caring for the poor and needy.

 

[KSU]

BlueDogMN: " I most certainly agree with the church, too. It is however not the “illegal” person we should be targeting, rather the cause for their migration; which is much larger, as suggested."

ME: Exactly right! But we can’t seem to convince Liberals that Socialism is “the cause of their migration”, and that Liberation Theology and policies that necessitate breaking even more U S laws (lying to employers, sanctuary against law enforcement, voting without citizenship, false ID papers, driving without insurance, etc.) are the answers.

“The threads on this and many other topics in Catholic forums seem to suggest that we not only secure our borders but make access to our country an impermeable barrier.”

ME: Suggest? Heck, I’ll scream it out: We MUST not only secure our borders but we MUST make access to our country an impermeable barrier for illegal immigrants.

“This thread (and others) seem to suggest that more and more Catholics are wanting to secure the doors to our church in the same manner.”

ME: That’s strange, I don’t recall anyone on this thread or other CAF threads saying we should deny the sacraments or Church aid (e.g., milk for infants or similar aid) or humane treatment for illegal immigrants. Nor do I recall anyone here saying we should not “welcome the sinner, the homeless, the addicts, the ‘illegal’ aliens, the prostitutes, the homosexual, the murderer, the … to experience salvation through the sacred tradition of the church.”

" The church is not the place of self-proclaimed righteous"

ME: True, but I have yet to meet or debate a “Catholic” Liberal who is not an example of holier-than-thou, self-righteousness.

" The exclusive church that some seem to promote would be a very lonely and cold place."

ME: That is about 180 degrees opposite of the truth. A Church peopled exclusively by authentic Catholics could convert the world–it’s what I pray for.

 

[KSU]

Oops, I missed the word “not” in the second paragraph of my post #545. It should read:

“ME: Exactly right! But we can’t seem to convince Liberals that Socialism is “the cause of their migration”, and that Liberation Theology and policies that necessitate breaking even more U S laws (lying to employers, sanctuary against law enforcement, voting without citizenship, false ID papers, driving without insurance, etc.) are NOT the answers.”

 

[4gsd]

I recently read (can’t remember where) that the reason most dissident Catholics stay in the Church is because they realize that if they left then their influence would weaken (i.e. no one would really care what they think). I think this seems reasonable enough with respect to Catholic politicians who support abortion, gay marriage, etc. It also could apply to dissident priests. And even those people in charge of organizations like Catholics for Choice.

But my question is, what about the average layman? The man or woman who attends Mass weekly, yet his opinion on many things is not in accord with the Church. Why do these folks remain in the Church? You can’t really say that they stay for reasons of influence or power. So what is it?

Thanks.

I think for many people, The Catholic Church is home. Its what they know. Yes, many Catholics have conflicts with Church teaching vs. (in this case) US Law. I know sometimes I do (if I am being truly honest). But a “conflicted” Catholic is still…a Catholic. Perhaps some of the people you alluded to are actually still in the Church and doing dialogue on those issues of conflict. Perhaps they are praying for discernment and clarity. Personally, I would prefer that these people stay with the Church. They just might be swayed by the love, logic and consistancy that The Church offers on those social issues with which they are in conflict.
Lastly, if The Catholic Church is the “one true” Church, where would they go ?

 

[theswan]

Why would a Catholic whether conservative or liberal leave the Church?

Yes, i’m not too sure of the teachings of the Church, Did we not torture people, issue indulgence’s and other wrong things? Why not believe that the Church may change in the future?

My core Catholic belief is in the True Eucharist, Sanctified by god through the apostolic progression, forgiveness of Sins, Christ coming again Etc as our creed states.

Women priests? Well…I do not know I’d be lying if I thought this will stand forever. Sacrament of marriage? I would love to have had this but my wife did not want to be Catholic so I believed it impossible. I will file as my pastor directs me and will abstain from the Body of christ until such time as it is made real in the eyes of the Church or not.

i still vow to my wife and still love her as much. I believe I am married but my Church does not-will this change one day? Doubt it but hope it-is this wrong of me? did the Lord not give me a brain?

I remain as active as I can be as i am in the music ministry and cantor. I regret my not having to partake of the Eucharist but I obey which is what I feel as a Catholic is correct.

Now because of my off center beliefs to suggest I leave the Church makes me sad at best. More like angry. As a sinner I remain as close to Love as possible as God is Love, I find Him in the Church.

Glen

 

[theswan]

Calumny is a sin

To 'Sum" up Catholic teachings here to support one’s view makes one guilty of this sin. I know because I did it out of ignorance but have since retracted my views where I quoted church teachings as such and such.

Just a word of caution as we have a world of foremost authority’s here (sarcasm intended) As I was as guilty as others lol

Glen

 

[KSU]

Per theswan:
“Calumny is a sin”
To ‘Sum’ up Catholic teachings here to support one’s view makes one guilty of this sin. I know because I did it out of ignorance but have since retracted my views where I quoted church teachings as such and such."

My friend, the above is not Church teaching, but is an example of what you accuse others of doing. Seems you still are doing it out of ignorance.

Calumny: The unjust damaging of the good name of another by imputing to him a crime or fault of which he is not guilty.

 

[formerlysure]

In mass Sunday, as I tried to focus on the new translation of the Mass, I was reminded of this thread. For what it’s worth, it seems to me that we’re trying to “compete” with the big mega churches, by making ourselves more “fun” and “modern”. I was very pleased that the intention of the new translation is to make our mass more true to the Latin roots.

However, it was hard to really even hear it and focus on it with all the other distracting “modernizations” of the mass . There’s the hand-holding during the Lord’s prayer (everyone I know finds this awkward and wishes it would go away). There is the new thing of excusing this group or that from mass - at our mass Sunday the kids left for a half hour, the RCIA candidates for about 20 minutes and we had to have songs and fanfare for each.

The priest hugged the teenage girls who brought up the gifts for communion.

We didn’t just have the sign of the peace - we also had hand shaking at the beginning of mass to introduce ourselves. It was one thing after another through the entire mass - the cantor in 5" heels (I’m not that old and my friends have always called these “stripper heels”). Cell phones ringing. People coming either as total slobs, or dressed for a nightclub. Kids being provided toys and snacks. Some of these parents come as if they were going camping for a week - it’s ONE hour. And we have donuts afterwards.

My thought was that what’s coming between us isn’t really liberal versus conservative views, but rather an absence of reverence in the mass, and the fact that we’ve allowed all this distraction to interfere in the most holy hour of our week. It stands between us as Catholics, as we’ve permitted our traditions that brought us together to erode, and it stands between each of us and God, as our mass more and more glorifies ourselves and one another than Him.

I just wonder if we should turn to that which brought us together to start with - God - and putting our focus back on Him and away from ourselves and each other - to make progress in resolving our differences as Catholics?

When I was a teenager, my sister and I could agree on nothing - except that our bickering was tiresome to our parents. Reminding ourselves and each other of that alone would end our otherwise endless arguments. Maybe if we all focus on God, being reverent to Him and making Mass sacred again–on studying our faith together and improving our formation as Catholics – we might understand better what we are called to do.

Then we may find we have far less to argue about than we thought and we won’t want anyone to leave.

 

[theswan]

I stand by what I wrote!

We have no right to “sum” up Catholic teaching-it is a false front and a sin. Very much like bearing false witness as it is that persons opinion.

Glen

 

[estesbob]

I stand by what I wrote!

We have no right to “sum” up Catholic teaching-it is a false front and a sin. Very much like bearing false witness as it is that persons opinion.

Glen

You can stand by what you wrote but people should be aware there is no support for what you wrote in the teachings of the Church

 

[KSU]

Per formerlysure in post #551: " For what it’s worth, it seems to me that we’re trying to ‘compete’ with the big mega churches, by making ourselves more ‘fun’ and ‘modern’.

Great post about the post-VC II Mass! What you describe is what I have been suffering through for many years. There is nobody to blame but Liberals–with and without Roman collars. Far too many in the clergy fear offending Liberals more than God–they must have their reasons, however wrong-headed those reasons may be.

I also believe that the past destruction of our beautiful liturgy, music and Church interiors was accomplished by design, not by mere, muddle-headed Liberals who want the Church to become fun and modern. The former (largely Socialists and homosexuals) worked tirelessly, inside and out of the VC II sessions, but were thwarted, so they acted unofficially after VC II. Goodbye alter rails, correct translation from the Latin, statues, VC II-mandated Latin Chant, etc., etc.

The damage was done. Here is Cardinal Noe:
“You at Petrus, have made a real blow, because I am in a position of revealing for the first time what Paul VI meant to denounce with that statement. Here it is. Pope Montini [speaking of Satan] meant to classify all those priests, bishops and cardinals who didn’t render worship to the Lord by badly celebrating Holy Mass through an erroneous interpretation and application of the Second Vatican Council. He spoke of the smoke of Satan [with regard to these clergy] who turned Holy Mass into straw in the name of creativity, but who in truth were possessed of the vainglory and the pride of the Evil One. Therefore, the smoke of Satan was none other than the mentality that wanted to distort the traditional canons and liturgy of the Eucharistic ceremony.” newliturgicalmovement.org/2008/05/cardinal-noe-on-smoke-of-satan-and_15.html

I’ve know some very good priests around the country who tried to stop the irreverence and shenanigans, but they got little to no support from their fellow priests or from our fearless shepherds in the chanceries.

The good news is that thanks to Popes JP II and B XVI, the tide is changing.

 

[theswan]

of course! I admit my opinions are my own-you claim the teachings of the Church which is offering a false teaching as you are not the Church or in a position of Authority.

Maybe if you soften your “official” teachings with 'Perhaps the Church means this or that" instead you speak as if the voice of the Church when we are but bodies of this Whole!

Again, when offering teachings to offset the postings of others, it is a sin called calumny.

I was guilty on facebook as I took from the official teachings that which fit my line of thought. You must not do this as I see it

Clear enough? YOU do not speak for the Church period! If YOU do, it can be a sin if the intention is to put down another’s opinion as in my case here.

Glen