Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[RobbyS]

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.

All living being having a soul, a rational soul would be one capable of forming a relationship with God.

 

[21faces]

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.

Maybe our faith is as sincere as anyone else’s? Maybe we feel moved by the Spirit to remain in The Church where we belong and contribute to charity and renewal? As a 2,000 year old organization change is slow, but inevitable. Catholics around the world have made their view on contraception crystal clear in their birth rates, for example. Personally I’d rather be “part of the solution” than abdicate our entire faith tradition to the modern Pharisees.

 

[asnate]

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.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, it is not a global company regulated by Canon Law. And Pope is not a CEO, he is Vicar of Christ.
Christ has chosen us, so it is upon Him to decide who should stay and who should leave (although I think He does not want anyone to leave).

 

[Brendan]

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.

Sort of. The Church certainly recognizes that differentiation of species happens.

But the Church does not consider it to be a random process, but one (like all things) guided by God.

To a Catholic, humans are not the product of a random process, but the willed end goal of a process designed by God to specifically produce us.

If that process took 6 days, or 4 billion years, the Church makes no requirement. But we DO have to believe that we were specifically designed by God.

So as the terms are used in modern society, we believe more in Intelligent Design that Darwinian Evolution.

 

[RobbyS]

Maybe our faith is as sincere as anyone else’s? Maybe we feel moved by the Spirit to remain in The Church where we belong and contribute to charity and renewal? As a 2,000 year old organization change is slow, but inevitable. Catholics around the world have made their view on contraception crystal clear in their birth rates, for example. Personally I’d rather be “part of the solution” than abdicate our entire faith tradition to the modern Pharisees.

Birth rates slow and rise irrespective of contraception as we understand the term. A woman can just “decide” not to be fertile. Getting pregnant is a touch and go thing anyway.

 

[Hamlet123]

All living being having a soul, a rational soul would be one capable of forming a relationship with God.

For a complete definition one must include the subject’s:

origin (where it came from; its cause of existance)
composition ( what it is made of)
product (what it produces)
essence (what makes it different from its genises {spelling})

Your definition (like most) is incomplete. No problem - most definitions are; however, when only giving a part of a definition it could lead to ambiguity and lead one to accept a false premise. I am not sure what your point is “forming a relationship with God” is one of the products of the soul - perhaps the most important. But in responding to my comment what are you eluding to?

 

[RobbyS]

For a complete definition one must include the subject’s:

origin (where it came from; its cause of existance)
composition ( what it is made of)
product (what it produces)
essence (what makes it different from its genises {spelling})

Your definition (like most) is incomplete. No problem - most definitions are; however, when only giving a part of a definition it could lead to ambiguity and lead one to accept a false premise. I am not sure what your point is “forming a relationship with God” is one of the products of the soul - perhaps the most important. But in responding to my comment what are you eluding to?

I was not trying to “define” anything. “Rationality" is such a uniquely human thing that I was just saying that it involves “knowing” God, not just being able to reason about Him.
You are perhaps trying to define the undefinable. We certainly do not know what the material cause of life is.We can deconstruct living matter, but cannot construct it.

 

[Hamlet123]

I was not trying to “define” anything. “Rationality" is such a uniquely human thing that I was just saying that it involves “knowing” God, not just being able to reason about Him.
You are perhaps trying to define the undefinable. We certainly do not know what the material cause of life is.We can deconstruct living matter, but cannot construct it.

Like it:thumbsup:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Sort of. The Church certainly recognizes that differentiation of species happens.

But the Church does not consider it to be a random process, but one (like all things) guided by God.

To a Catholic, humans are not the product of a random process, but the willed end goal of a process designed by God to specifically produce us…

The attribute of randomness, when properly understood from a philosophical perspective, does not stand in opposition to the will of God being worked in the creation of man.

To illustrate the real meaning of randomness, consider modern encryption codes used all the time for secure Internet communication. When a code is properly designed, the encoded information appears indistinguishable from random data to everyone who is not in possession of the secret key. There is no apparent information in that encoded data. Only when you have the decoding key can you reveal the hidden message. Now imagine that the process of evolution used by God uses a process that appears random to our limited intelligence, even though in the mind of God, nothing is random. However we are not God. We cannot pretend to know what He knows, except for what He has specifically revealed to us.

There are those whose try to use evolution to deny the existence of God. These people are making the same mistake, by attaching the significance of intentionality to the scientific property of randomness. All randomness means is the absence of a scientifically observable cause. Randomness itself does not contain any theological implications.

The error I think people in the Intelligent Design camp make is to claim that the scientific evidence for divine causation is scientifically observable. Intelligent Design is fine as a philosophical position. But it not a proper scientific position and should not be presented as such. I think God is clever enough to create man without leaving any of His fingerprints behind, if He so chooses. Perhaps God wants us to rely on testimony and revelation for this issue.

 

[Monkey1976]

Maybe our faith is as sincere as anyone else’s? Maybe we feel moved by the Spirit to remain in The Church where we belong and contribute to charity and renewal? As a 2,000 year old organization change is slow, but inevitable. Catholics around the world have made their view on contraception crystal clear in their birth rates, for example. Personally I’d rather be “part of the solution” than abdicate our entire faith tradition to the modern Pharisees.

Hate to tell you, but the Church isn’t a democracy. Back in the 4th century, Catholics around the world - including a majority of the episcopate - made their view on the Divinity of Our Lord “crystal clear”. It was called the Arian heresy. Could you remind me how well that went? The immorality of contraception has been taught since the 1st century. It’s not going to change, because Truth cannot change. History is littered with the rubble of groups who thought they knew better than the Church.

 

[KSU]

LeafByNiggle, you say, “The error I think people in the Intelligent Design camp make is to claim that the scientific evidence for divine causation is scientifically observable. Intelligent Design is fine as a philosophical position. But it not a proper scientific position and should not be presented as such.”

While far from being one of the Intelligent Design camp’s followers, neither am I sure that you present the core of their argument when you present it as, “scientific evidence for divine causation is scientifically observable.”

I would appreciate your thoughts on what I see as the gist of their case, at least insofar as I think orthodox Catholics should embrace it. Is it not the gist of their case that some teachings of the atheist’s gospel (i.e., the universally accepted scientific laws laid down by the atheist’s great god Science) would have to be considered false in order to accept the theory of macro-evolution? In short, at its core, doesn’t Intelligent Design simply hold that one must hypocritically trade scientific facts for theory in order to be able to argue for the “science” of macro-evolution?

For example, in simple language, the second law of thermodynamics holds that chaos/disorder can not and does not evolve into perfect harmony/order; just the opposite. That elementary scientific fact in itself destroys the theory of macro-evolution which holds that the perfect order/harmony of, as just two examples, the human body and of the universe evolved from chaos. As you probably know better than I, there are many scientific laws that fly in the face of macro-evolution.

Wouldn’t it be more true then to present the core position (but not all the conclusions) of Intelligent Design as a proper scientific position that macro-evolution is neither scientifically observable nor scientifically supportable?

If I am wrong, I would appreciate correction. This issue of true science and macro-evolution is one that liberal Catholics have been known to cloud. I think that orthodox Catholics and the Intelligent Design crowd can to some extent become strange bedfellows.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I would appreciate your thoughts on what I see as the gist of their [intelligent Design] case, at least insofar as I think orthodox Catholics should embrace it. Is it not the gist of their case that some teachings of the atheist’s gospel (i.e., the universally accepted scientific laws laid down by the atheist’s great god Science) would have to be considered false in order to accept the theory of macro-evolution? In short, at its core, doesn’t Intelligent Design simply hold that one must hypocritically trade scientific facts for theory in order to be able to argue for the “science” of macro-evolution?

For example, in simple language, the second law of thermodynamics holds that chaos/disorder can not and does not evolve into perfect harmony/order; just the opposite. That elementary scientific fact in itself destroys the theory of macro-evolution which holds that the perfect order/harmony of, as just two examples, the human body and of the universe evolved from chaos. As you probably know better than I, there are many scientific laws that fly in the face of macro-evolution.

I have heard that sort of thing cited by ID folks. However in most cases such criticisms are based on a misunderstanding of what things like the laws of thermodynamics actually say. I know of no commonly accepted scientific law of physics, strictly interpreted, that is contradicted by macro evolution. But rather than get into a debate in the field of science, I would like to see this issue from a Catholic philosophical perspective. The Catholic Church rightly neither condemns nor promotes macro evolution or any competing scientific theory such as Intelligent Design. I draw a clear distinction between ID as philosophy and ID as science. I agree with the first, but not the second.

This issue of true science and macro-evolution is one that liberal Catholics have been known to cloud.

If someone is drawing unwarranted conclusions from macro-evolution, that is indeed unfortunate. But it does not prove anything one way or the other about macro-evolution itself.

 

[RobbyS]

I have heard that sort of thing cited by ID folks. However in most cases such criticisms are based on a misunderstanding of what things like the laws of thermodynamics actually say. I know of no commonly accepted scientific law of physics, strictly interpreted, that is contradicted by macro evolution. But rather than get into a debate in the field of science, I would like to see this issue from a Catholic philosophical perspective. The Catholic Church rightly neither condemns nor promotes macro evolution or any competing scientific theory such as Intelligent Design. I draw a clear distinction between ID as philosophy and ID as science. I agree with the first, but not the second.

If someone is drawing unwarranted conclusions from macro-evolution, that is indeed unfortunate. But it does not prove anything one way or the other about macro-evolution itself.

I support ID as a critique of Darwinism, and as such it is as much science as what Dawkins et al. propose. In his little book “Mind and Cosmos,” rejects both approaches as radical reductionism. For his fairness, Nagel, who is an atheist, is catching heck.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I support ID as a critique of Darwinism, and as such it is as much science as what Dawkins et al. propose…

I don’t think Dawkins is scientific in his conclusions either.

 

[KSU]

In regard to converting liberal Catholics into orthodox Catholics, and atheists into believers, I believe that science and philosophy are almost useless because, without faith, science and philosophy will be seen as just propaganda.

But wait! Can’t we all at least believe in the real world, commonly accepted mathematical science that one plus one always equals two?

“No. Even school kids can see that’s not enough information”, our super scientists and philosophers tell us. “One plus one of what? One apple plus one orange does not equal two apples or two oranges. One positive and one negative don’t equal two of anything.”

OK, then doesn’t one apple plus one apple equal two apples–always?

“No. That’s still not enough information”, they will say. “What time period are you talking about? Did the apples rot away or were one or both eaten, or one rot and one half eaten? After the time required for nothing to evolve into everything, the apples may have been processed by animals and nature and thus become apple trees that covered the world pole to pole and produced countless trillions of apples.”

I’m not trying to be silly here, folks. For example, after just a little research on only a single commonly accepted law of science ( the second law of thermodynamics) one can prove “scientifically”, that macro-evolution is impossible, or that macro-evolution is not only possible but that it actually happened, i.e., first we had nothing, then we had something, then we had Lucy, and now we have Dawkins ,et al., all without a god.

It seems that without faith everybody has their own science and their own philosophy, and nothing changes significantly.

The gifts of the Spirit are all that matter. Then and only then can one enjoy science and philosophy as a labor of love or even just a pleasant hobby.

 

[Hamlet123]

In regard to converting liberal Catholics into orthodox Catholics, and atheists into believers, I believe that science and philosophy are almost useless because, without faith, science and philosophy will be seen as just propaganda.

But wait! Can’t we all at least believe in the real world, commonly accepted mathematical science that one plus one always equals two?

“No. Even school kids can see that’s not enough information”, our super scientists and philosophers tell us. “One plus one of what? One apple plus one orange does not equal two apples or two oranges. One positive and one negative don’t equal two of anything.”

OK, then doesn’t one apple plus one apple equal two apples–always?

“No. That’s still not enough information”, they will say. “What time period are you talking about? Did the apples rot away or were one or both eaten, or one rot and one half eaten? After the time required for nothing to evolve into everything, the apples may have been processed by animals and nature and thus become apple trees that covered the world pole to pole and produced countless trillions of apples.”

I’m not trying to be silly here, folks. For example, after just a little research on only a single commonly accepted law of science ( the second law of thermodynamics) one can prove “scientifically”, that macro-evolution is impossible, or that macro-evolution is not only possible but that it actually happened, i.e., first we had nothing, then we had something, then we had Lucy, and now we have Dawkins ,et al., all without a god.

It seems that without faith everybody has their own science and their own philosophy, and nothing changes significantly.

The gifts of the Spirit are all that matter. Then and only then can one enjoy science and philosophy as a labor of love or even just a pleasant hobby.

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t think Dawkins is scientific in his conclusions either.

Dawkin’s conclusions rest on his materialism. I don’t think that science --which is to say the investigation of material things-- could exist on the skepticism that underlies that.

 

[Saralinda]

I consider myself a fairly liberal Catholic. I stay in the Church because it is one, holy, catholic and universal. I stay in the Church I would be lost without the Real Presence. I stay in the Church because it is the only place I could possibly be at home.

My grown children think I am too conservative because I do not understand gay people and think life begins at conception.

Still, I would not be scandalized if women could be ordained as priests.

The Church is a Living Institution and by definition, is ever changing. But the Church’s vision and truth stays the same.

 

[Ginagrimsley]

Why do sinners ( all of us ) stay in the church? Same as " liberal " Catholics I believe.

 

[StranraerHibby]

I think the political leanings of the Catholic church are a mixture of traditional conservatism and more left-leaning economically.

I’m quite left-wing, a British republican and the Catholic church appeals to me because of it’s stand on social justice and the poor. Too many conservatives have hijacked Catholicism in the name of greed - something that the church is against.