Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Baelor]

If you have no candidate due to the evil of candidates, don’t vote for any of them! This is the way I do it in England. If they are corrupt, I don’t want it on my conscience that I voted them into power.

I totally disagree. Voting is fundamentally relative. Your vote is not stating that you want candidate X, it is stating that you want candidate X more than any other candidate.

If no candidate is in line with the Truth, but one is more so, regardless of his absolute “evil,” I would still feel totally, 100% obligated at a moral level to ensure that the best candidate wins. Hence the lesser of two evils (although, you could always vote for Cthulhu and not settle for the lesser evil…).

If two candidates both want gay marriage but one is against abortion and the other is not, anyone who abstained from voting is doing nothing to prevent a great evil from taking office.

 

[Joe_Hill]

I’m pro life myself, but neither Dems nor Reps have put a stop to abortion and neither will they.

 

[Matilda_Bennett]

Please remember to stay on the original topic of discussion and to avoid politics in your posts. Thank you for your cooperation!

 

[Jerome_Fan]

I totally disagree. Voting is fundamentally relative. Your vote is not stating that you want candidate X, it is stating that you want candidate X more than any other candidate.

If no candidate is in line with the Truth, but one is more so, regardless of his absolute “evil,” I would still feel totally, 100% obligated at a moral level to ensure that the best candidate wins. Hence the lesser of two evils (although, you could always vote for Cthulhu and not settle for the lesser evil…).

If two candidates both want gay marriage but one is against abortion and the other is not, anyone who abstained from voting is doing nothing to prevent a great evil from taking office.

I think, because of the intrinsic evil involved in homosexuality and abortion, there is no ‘lesser of two evils’ with this one. If candidates are for either of these, your vote will be held against you in the Court of Our Blessed Lord. The only holy thing to do would be to pray about it and not vote for those who thwart the Will of God with impunity. God bless.

 

[KSU]

realcatholictv.com/daily/?today=2012-01-13

 

[Jerome_Fan]

realcatholictv.com/daily/?today=2012-01-13

A great site for learning about our wonderful Roman Catholic faith. I found this particular Vortex extremely interesting and informative.

 

[Michael19682]

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.

1. Where else is there to go?
2. The Lord is known to be received in the sacrament of the Church. Elsewhere we can only hope he is. Even if the whole Church were to tell me that I am somehow evil for my beliefs, but they yet let me confess and receive communion, then, figuratively, a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough.
3. I like All need the protection of the holy Spirit of God.
4. There is just something endearing about a Catholic Mass that cannot be found elsewhere.

I like the point about not staying for influence or power. My question would be: in what sphere of reality are you referring to this influence having its domain?

 

[Jerome_Fan]

1. Where else is there to go?
2. The Lord is known to be received in the sacrament of the Church. Elsewhere we can only hope he is. Even if the whole Church were to tell me that I am somehow evil for my beliefs, but they yet let me confess and receive communion, then, figuratively, a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough.
3. I like All need the protection of the holy Spirit of God.
4. There is just something endearing about a Catholic Mass that cannot be found elsewhere.

I like the point about not staying for influence or power. My question would be: in what sphere of reality are you referring to this influence having its domain?

In England, many dissidents or even ‘couldn’t care less about the faith’ people remain in the Church just to get their kids through school. It is well known that the Catholic schools are the best in the country. We regular Church goers notice a huge fall off in attendance once the Holy Communions are over or the Confirmations and then again in the summer holidays. These people go up to receive in the hand, without even blessing themselves, some are even chewing gum as the do so. Yet the priest says nothing and meekly gives the Communion. Of course, they are eating and drinking their own damnation, as St Leonard of Port Maurice says; but it actually pains me to see it. Now, I cover my face after receiving my Blessed Lord and don’t look up until it is all over. If those receiving knew that they are eating the Body of Jesus and that He is their Just Judge, they would be so scared. But why, why, why don’t priests speak up about the need for confession?

 

[KSU]

"But why, why, why don’t priests speak up about the need for confession? "—Jerome Fan

Because liberals would be very upset if priests actually defined and identified types of grave sin, including-- shhh-- contraception. They might even leave the Church (as if they hadn’t already placed themselves outside the Church) and join the more “understanding and welcoming” Episcopalians, Lutherans or “church of What’s Happing Now.” And five will get you ten that some bishops would not take kindly to such results.

But note this from the archives of one of Catholicism’s best; Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.:

QUOTE Then came the Second Vatican Council with widespread liturgical changes that are common knowledge. What may not be common knowledge, however, is that since the Council, Pope Paul VI authorized one of the most eloquent pleas in papal history for frequent reception of the sacrament of Penance. While recognizing that the immediate purpose of the sacrament is to remit grave sins, the new ritual emphasizes its salutary function also when mortal sins against God have not been committed. Once again, I quote in full.
Frequent and reverent recourse to this sacrament, even when only venial sin is in question, is of great value. Frequent confession is not mere ritual repetition, nor is it merely a psychological exercise. Rather is it a constant effort to bring to perfection the grace of our Baptism so that as we carry about in our bodies the death of Jesus Christ who died, the life that Jesus Christ lives may be more and more manifested in us. In such confessions penitents, while indeed confessing venial sins, should be mainly concerned with becoming more deeply conformed to Christ, and more submissive to the voice of the Spirit.
Pope John Paul II, in one document and speech after another, repeats the same message. He dares to say that those who discourage going to Confession because it produces a repressive mentality “are lying.” He tells the faithful to receive this sacrament as often as possible. Why? Because “by this sacrament, we are renewed in fervor, strengthened in our resolutions, and supported by divine encouragement.” How we need to hear these words in an age when discouragement, leading to despair, is almost the hallmark of the modern world. END QUOTE

 

[kama3]

the Church still (often through its Pontifical Academy of Sciences) defends true science against error in matters of interest to the Church.

Well, the Church has “defended true science” against one Italian guy with a telescope for over 100 years, and needed another 300 years to apologize for the mistake. With such track record, the Church is hardly a good indicator of what a “true science” is. Unless one of course believes that “true science” is something which fits one’s prejudices

You seem to believe a merely theoretically possible mitigation of a merely theoretical danger (AGW)
[/quit]

As it stands today, both the Pentagon, and the civilian strategy circles disagree with your asserion: csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071105_ageofconsequences.pdf
KSU;8800420:

should be more important to the Church than the FACT of killing one unborn soul.
[/quite]

It is already established that 10^8 deaths from global warming is pretty much unavoidable, and 10^9 is likely should the situation get out of hand (politically and militarily; the report I linked above does a good job at describing what will happen). And should the methane clathrates defreeze (a fact which I personally find unlikely, though it has not been ruled out) then a runaway warming would get pretty much everyone putting the body count at 10^10.

Of course, none of these people will have “AGW” put as cause of death on their death certificate, so you will claim that they don’t exist
KSU;8800420:

[soon you will claim] that AGW is real and causing abortions.

AGW → drought → famine → abortions (both spontaneous and induced).

 

[BlueCamerlengo]

I consider myself liberal politically and conservative religiously. I’ve worked for liberal organizations, political parties, and more. I’ve also been very involved in the Catholic Church. The only reason I consider myself conservative religiously is because I am part of the Catholic Church.

If you really think about it though, the “Church” is pretty liberal, when compared to just about every other religious institution. For example, we believe in evolution. We believe that the bible, while being inspired though the Holy Spirit was in fact written by people and people that are capable of making mistakes. We don’t take the bible literally; instead we let the Church help guide us. Also, we believe that as long as a person is a “good person” they can be saved. They don’t even have to believe in God.

Our Church was the only church started by Christ himself. He told Peter, the first Pope, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Our Church is Christ’s Church. It was not started by anyone, other than Christ himself.

The Church is the vessel of God, except that vessel is made by people. And as I said before, people are capable of making mistakes. Sometimes the Church has popes, bishops, priests, and lay people who do work that is against Jesus’ commandment of love. Sometimes it really hurts people. It is up to us as Catholics to fix the Church when it goes astray, not to leave it and start a new one. We must keep Christ’s Church and help it to be the light of the world.

After all, the Church is for the world. Catholic means “universal.” People of every race, every culture, every age, and every country are part of our Church. We call for peace, economic and social justice, environmental responsibility, and global citizenship. If anything promoting a Universal Church that cares for all peoples should be enough of a reason for a liberal to remain in the Church, even if they find themselves lacking support for the Church.

 

[Hamlet123]

I consider myself liberal politically and conservative religiously. I’ve worked for liberal organizations, political parties, and more. I’ve also been very involved in the Catholic Church. The only reason I consider myself conservative religiously is because I am part of the Catholic Church.

If you really think about it though, the “Church” is pretty liberal, when compared to just about every other religious institution. For example, we believe in evolution. We believe that the bible, while being inspired though the Holy Spirit was in fact written by people and people that are capable of making mistakes. We don’t take the bible literally; instead we let the Church help guide us. Also, we believe that as long as a person is a “good person” they can be saved. They don’t even have to believe in God.

Our Church was the only church started by Christ himself. He told Peter, the first Pope, “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Our Church is Christ’s Church. It was not started by anyone, other than Christ himself.

The Church is the vessel of God, except that vessel is made by people. And as I said before, people are capable of making mistakes. Sometimes the Church has popes, bishops, priests, and lay people who do work that is against Jesus’ commandment of love. Sometimes it really hurts people. It is up to us as Catholics to fix the Church when it goes astray, not to leave it and start a new one. We must keep Christ’s Church and help it to be the light of the world.

After all, the Church is for the world. Catholic means “universal.” People of every race, every culture, every age, and every country are part of our Church. We call for peace, economic and social justice, environmental responsibility, and global citizenship. If anything promoting a Universal Church that cares for all peoples should be enough of a reason for a liberal to remain in the Church, even if they find themselves lacking support for the Church.

You have made some big mistakes in your understanding of what the Catholic church teaches. I will point out just two.

The Catholic Church does NOT take a stand on evolution.

There ARE parts of the bible that we (to be) Catholics must believe. One of those are that ALL of the events in the New Testament (actually) happened.

I will also note your argument is lacking as you have not defined what conservative and liberal means. In the context of theology typically a better word for conservative is “orthodox”; that is, the belief of an organization’s views… this is a most basic definitioin.

To be Catholic is to be orthodox in our belief.

 

[KSU]

BlueCamerlengo, welcome to the CA site. Your post is a good example of some of the differences between so-called liberal and conservative Catholics, which differences gave rise to the question, “Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?”

As a conservative (orthodox, small o) Catholic, I would never say, as you do without much explanation that, “After all, the Church is for the world.” Standing alone, that’s far too dangerous a statement; i.e., far too easily manipulated by liberals who --and please note I am not including you–hideously use the Church Herself in attempts to justify homosexuality, contraception, abortion, false social justice, anti-subsidiarity, and even Socialism. You must be aware of the self-described liberal Catholics who are in the news and immediately come to mind because they attempt to justify such sins.

As a conservative Catholic I would say, rather, “The Church is IN the world, but not OF the world.” So long as the world is ruled by Satan*, in this narrow context it would be more correct from an orthodox point of view to say that the Church is against the world rather than for the world.

In closing you say, “If anything, promoting a Universal Church that cares for all peoples should be enough of a reason for a liberal to remain in the Church, even if they find themselves lacking support for the Church.” That, my friend, is the reason this thread exists, viz: If anyone is neither supported by nor can support the Roman Catholic Church, why stay and promote it? Why promote any institution which exits to destroy that which one believes in?

Unfortunately, the truthful answer for far to many is: To continue to subvert the Church. Again, I am not referring to you.

May Our Lord and His “Universal Church, that cares for all peoples”, grant you the answers you seek. You seem at least to know where to look, and that’s a good sign.

*Ephesians 2:2, John 12:31, Colossians 1:13, 2 Timothy 2:26, 1 John 5:19, etc.

 

[BlueCamerlengo]

“The Catholic Church does NOT take a stand on evolution.” - Pope John Paul II gave a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 called Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. In that speech the Pope said that evolution is compatible with Church teachings.

We are a Church of science. The church of Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton. We brought about the scientific method and the university system. We preserved the knowledge of western civilization in Monasteries after the barbarians plowed though Europe.

“There ARE parts of the bible that we (to be) Catholics must believe. One of those are that ALL of the events in the New Testament (actually) happened.” - Of course there are parts of the bible we must believe. We must believe our creed, which is based off of the scripture and guided through the Chruch (by the Holy Spirit) before it gets to us. The Roman Rite mass includes this, so that we know we must believe it. But we don’t need to believe in creationism or that Eve came from Adam’s rib or even in Adam and Eve.

And you’re right I probably should have used the word “orthodox” instead of conservative. Conservative is slow or maybe resistant to change. Orthodox is the original belief. Most people use orthodox when talking about religion.

But maybe…

While we as Catholics have had an unbroken lines of popes back to Peter, we have reformed the Church many times. Like Pope Francis, I would like to see more reform, but I won’t be leaving the Church like Martin Luther. Instead I’ll try my best to help make it happen.

 

[Hamlet123]

“The Catholic Church does NOT take a stand on evolution.” - Pope John Paul II gave a speech to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on October 22, 1996 called Truth Cannot Contradict Truth. In that speech the Pope said that evolution is compatible with Church teachings.

To be “compatable with” is not to say that a theory is a fact. The Church DOES NOT hold that evolution is a fact.

 

[agnes_therese]

To be “compatable with” is not to say that a theory is a fact. The Church DOES NOT hold that evolution is a fact.

No, but neither does the Church say that evolution is NOT a fact.

“Compatible with” means that there is nothing that stands in the way of a Catholic being *free to believe *in evolution. The Church does not require that we believe in evolution, nor that we deny evolution.

 

[BlueCamerlengo]

Thank you KSU.

Interesting point about the Church being IN the world as apposed to OF the world. - especially so long as the world is ruled by Satan. There are many people who are not yet ready for the Church, so I do think that we should help convince them to join though example.

You’re right. Liberal Catholics often use my idea to justify homosexuality, contraception, abortion, socialism, and more views that would most likely be a sin against God. But then again, who knows? Since the God is forgiving and the only one who will judge us on judgement day how are we to truly know what is wrong (I’m not saying what you said is wrong, it’s just rhetorical)? I guess we have the Church and 2000 years of history of billions of Catholics who have helped guide us to the correct answers and hopefully that is enough.

I think most of these issues like the above listed, are must more complicated than they seem politically (not that you brought up politics, I did). For example… in our country (US) we have Democrats who want legalize abortions but fight the against the death penalty. Then we have Republicans who want to stop abortions, but keep the death penalty. Neither are truly pro-life.

When we talk about contraception like condoms, I understand why it’s against the Church. Sex is suppose to have some sort of reproductive purpose (just one of the reasons), and getting in the way of God is wrong (unless it’s to prevent disease according to the retired pope). While the majority of Christians and Catholics (also Christians) don’t follow the don’t use contraception rule, I don’t think the Church should change her position. A Truth is a truth, even if everyone does something else.

 

[KSU]

Thank you KSU.

Interesting point about the Church being IN the world as apposed to OF the world. - especially so long as the world is ruled by Satan. There are many people who are not yet ready for the Church, so I do think that we should help convince them to join though example.

You’re right. Liberal Catholics often use my idea to justify homosexuality, contraception, abortion, socialism, and more views that would most likely be a sin against God. But then again, who knows? Since the God is forgiving and the only one who will judge us on judgement day how are we to truly know what is wrong (I’m not saying what you said is wrong, it’s just rhetorical)? I guess we have the Church and 2000 years of history of billions of Catholics who have helped guide us to the correct answers and hopefully that is enough.

I think most of these issues like the above listed, are must more complicated than they seem politically (not that you brought up politics, I did). For example… in our country (US) we have Democrats who want legalize abortions but fight the against the death penalty. Then we have Republicans who want to stop abortions, but keep the death penalty. Neither are truly pro-life.

When we talk about contraception like condoms, I understand why it’s against the Church. Sex is suppose to have some sort of reproductive purpose (just one of the reasons), and getting in the way of God is wrong (unless it’s to prevent disease according to the retired pope). While the majority of Christians and Catholics (also Christians) don’t follow the don’t use contraception rule, I don’t think the Church should change her position. A Truth is a truth, even if everyone does something else.

My friend, there is so much wrong, on the elementary level, with your above reply that I fear you would be offended if I tried to correct you.

 

[livingwordunity]

Liberal Catholics probably wish traditional, orthodox Catholics would leave the Church also.

Great Point. I don’t think there’s any probably about that. If liberals could be in charge of the Church I’m sure they wouldn’t hesitate to kick us out just as they would from one of their political conventions.

 

[Hamlet123]

No, but neither does the Church say that evolution is NOT a fact.

“Compatible with” means that there is nothing that stands in the way of a Catholic being *free to believe *in evolution. The Church does not require that we believe in evolution, nor that we deny evolution.

I agree 100%. The reason for my comment: another person herein had indicated that the Church believes in evolution. The Chruch does not pronounce on evolution; except to caution that the soul did not evolve, that at sometime God gave man a soul, a rational soul.