Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Brendan_64]

Yes, we are bound to accept what the Council really said, not what the Council didn’t say (about abortion, contraception, marriage, the family, sexuality, liturgy, the call to holiness, the laity as full participants in the life of the Church but not challengers of the teachings of the Church, the Church being both vertical and horizontal-not one OR the other–, transubstantiation, the prohibition against heterodox interpretation of scripture, the prohibition against sola scriptura, the affirmation of the all-male ministerial priesthood, the requirements of Faithful Citizenship – voting as conscientious Catholics, not detached secularists, etc.) The Council did not reverse any of that. Maybe you know that, but (again) more than half of living Catholics do not know that, and another segment has possibly convinced themselves of something they know did not occur.

Yes I do know that, and nothing in anything I have posted has suggested anything to the contrary.

I was merely pointing out that there are Catholics who clearly deny what is written by Vatican II on the meaning of “No salvation outside the Church” as they refuse to acknowledge what is written about theis in Lumen Gentium and Gaudum et Spes, and insist that their ‘harder line’ interpretation is the correct interpretation. I have also has Catholics tell me that it is wrong to attend a service (of any sort) in a Protestant Church, even though Unitatis Redintegratio states otherwise. I have had Catholics tell me that Muslims do not worship the same God as we do and that Islam is in fact a religion that worships Satan, despite what is written in Nostra Aetate. As requested by a previous poster I have quoted from these Vatican II documents to support these points.

I agree entirely that we are bound by what Vatican II actually said. It did not soften our position on morals at all, and those who think it did are very much misguided. On the other hand though, we are also bound by what is written in Vatican II and are not a liberty to take a more ‘hard line’ interpretation on issues such as the ones I referred to above.

Taking a more conservative interpretation of teachings than that of the Church’s own stated interpretation, is just as much a deviation from Church teaching as taking a more liberal interpretation. We are not a liberty to do either, we are fully bound by the Church’s position as stated at Vatican II.

 

[Casey123]

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?

It was made quite clear by the Catholic community here in my area that my beliefs put me at odds with Catholic teaching. It extended outside the Church and seeped into my professional life as well - I wasnt known as Casey the Liberal around town circles, I was known as Casey the Bad Catholic. I was quite sick of it. I support same sex marriage and reproductive choice (not interested in sparking a debate, this is just for context). I supported the ordination of women to all levels of Catholic ministry, and still hope the church changes its mind on this. I support Obamacare, increased accessibility of contraception and I donated to Planned Parenthood some years back. As a gay individual, I also refused to comply with that lifelong chastity stuff. I also greatly questioned the Pope and the structure of the church, which in my opinion, is authoritarian and leaves no room for dissent (just my opinion, no offense at all intended).

So I asked myself the very question you pose - “I don’t believe in this Church. Why am I still part of it?”

I sent a letter to the local Catholic bishop, addressed the situation with my majority-Catholic family, and told them “I mean no disrespect, but this isn’t a proper fit for me. So, respectfully, I’m leaving the Roman Catholic Church.” I respect traditionalists in the church and their opinion, but felt they did not respect mine, nor my right to disagree. Please understand my position - I did not leave to defame the church, it just wasn’t for me. I didn’t make a fuss, I said no word of ill will, I simply left.

Following the Canterbury trail, I found my home in the Episcopal Church, where I now serve as part of the laity. I’m very happy. I will not be “returning to Rome”, because I feel I was never truly there to begin with, though I do like to follow current events in the Catholic Church, especially in its continued dialogue with the Anglican Communion (hence why I like to read this forum from time to time). I was baptized Catholic as an infant, with no say or choice in the matter, so I know that the RCC still considers me one of its members. I, however, do not. I left because I felt it was a better choice to leave a church I did not believe in rather than stay and falsely profess the contrary every Sunday. I could not lie to God, my neighbors, nor myself.

So why do liberal Catholics stay within the Catholic Church? The honest answer is that I have no earthly idea, because for everyone, the decision to stay or leave is a personal one. We all have to choose our own path. Everyone’s situation is different, and given my same circumstances, someone else may have come to a different conclusion. In the end, I chose to depart.

I respected the Catholic Church and its teachings enough to respectfully part ways with it, because I had to respect myself, as well. It simply wasn’t a proper fit for me, and I certainly wasn’t a proper fit for it.

Just thought I’d share my experience as someone who has been in this precise situation. I also apologize for any typos in this post: I typed it up on my phone and autocorrect has a tendency not to catch everything.

 

[Kelfa28]

Following the Canterbury trail, I found my home in the Episcopal Church, where I now serve as part of the laity. I’m very happy. I will not be “returning to Rome”, because I feel I was never truly there to begin with, though I do like to follow current events in the Catholic Church, especially in its continued dialogue with the Anglican Communion (hence why I like to read this forum from time to time). I was baptized Catholic as an infant, with no say or choice in the matter, so I know that the RCC still considers me one of its members. I, however, do not. I left because I felt it was a better choice to leave a church I did not believe in rather than stay and falsely profess the contrary every Sunday. I could not lie to God, my neighbors, nor myself.

So why do liberal Catholics stay within the Catholic Church? The honest answer is that I have no earthly idea, because for everyone, the decision to stay or leave is a personal one. We all have to choose our own path. Everyone’s situation is different, and given my same circumstances, someone else may have come to a different conclusion. In the end, I chose to depart.

I can certainly respect this position.

Just to elaborate a bit…
Our Parish Priest is fairly new and very Orthodox. He shook things up big time at our Church. No more Eucharistic Ministers, no more female Alter Servers, no more distribution of the Blood of Christ, Perpetual Adoration, EF Mass every Thursday. The list goes on and on.

Many Parishioners were so shocked they didn’t know what to do. A lot left for other parishes in the area.
But it was one letter her received that prompted him to write a homily addressing this.
The letter basically stated that because of the changes he made…this parishioner decided to reject Christ entirely and leave Christianity all together.

Our Priest commented on how he’d hear this all the time when the sex abuse scandal in the Church was at it’s height. So many people just left Church in it’s entirety.
He said…if you don’t agree don’t come here and lie when you receive the sacraments…but DO NOT reject Jesus. He even told us to go to the Methodist Church that was a hop skip and a jump away.
Never reject Jesus.

 

[whatevergirl]

The term ‘liberal’ is a man-made label. Remember, God is the ONLY one who knows someone’s heart. It is not for any of us to judge who comes to mass and who does not. Who ‘stays’ in the church, and who does not.

Perhaps, there is something they cling to…and perhaps, in that clinging, they will be enlightened to new ways of thinking. To God’s full way of thinking.

I am not a liberal, but I have strayed from God numerous times. Thankfully, He doesn’t cast me out with a label, as many humans might. He has always waited for me to return…like the prodigal son.

Embrace those who are still attending mass. Don’t view them as …‘how dare THEY be here with ME.’ We are all sinners…we are all lost in our own unique ways, and if it weren’t for the Blood of Christ, we’d remain that way.

Liberal, Repubs, etc…are all distracting labels that if we are not careful, will make us feel like we are somehow ‘better’ than one another. We are not.

So, only God knows our hearts.

 

[KSU]

The meaning of what I have written is exactly what I have written…You insist on trying to misquote me…

My friend, your argument is with your own words, not with me. In order to avoid the charge of misquoting you, I was careful to copy and paste your own words, viz:
QOUTE"This also includes the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II. It seems to me that there are a fair few within our Church who knock ‘liberals’ for not keeping to the Church’s teachings, yet they themselves seem to think it is perfectly OK to ignore, or even reject, the teachings of an Ecumenical Council." END QUOTE (your post #756).

So, please stop saying that you never said “the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”; and that I put words in your mouth; and that I misquoted you. I will assume that this merely is a misunderstanding.

 

[Brendan_64]

Embrace those who are still attending mass. Don’t view them as …‘how dare THEY be here with ME.’ We are all sinners…we are all lost in our own unique ways, and if it weren’t for the Blood of Christ, we’d remain that way.

Isn’t it a sin to tell someone that they should leave the Catholic Church? Implying that some people don’t belong within the Church is a hair’s breadth away from that.

 

[Brendan_64]

My friend, your argument is with your own words, not with me. In order to avoid the charge of misquoting you, I was careful to copy and paste your own words, viz:
QOUTE"This also includes the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II. It seems to me that there are a fair few within our Church who knock ‘liberals’ for not keeping to the Church’s teachings, yet they themselves seem to think it is perfectly OK to ignore, or even reject, the teachings of an Ecumenical Council." END QUOTE (your post #756).

So, please stop saying that you never said “the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”; and that I put words in your mouth; and that I misquoted you. I will assume that this merely is a misunderstanding.

Yes. The teachings of the Church as declared at Vatican II, NOT new teachings of the Church. Vatican II did indeed state teachings of our Church and gave us the Church’s current interpretation of these teachings. We are not at liberty to take issue with Vatican II interpretation of the teachings declared at that Ecumenical Council.

And you accused me of saying that Vatican II declared NEW teachings. That is what I took issue with.

Exactly what were the new “teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”? Please quote them directly from the V II documents.

I never said, or even implied that there were any NEW teachings at Vatican II, but there were indeed clear interpretations of Church teachings given, and we are bound by those interpretations.

So, please stop saying that you never said “the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”; and that I put words in your mouth; and that I misquoted you. I will assume that this merely is a misunderstanding.

You are indeed putting words into my mouth, even with this last statement. I have never tried to maintain that I did not say “the teachings of the Church as declared as Vatican II”, you are putting words into my mouth here. What I did say is that I have never said that there were any new teachings declared at Vatican II.

 

[KSU]

Did they [leave]? I think you’ll find that the SSPX still maintain that they are part of the Roman Catholic Church, and that they acknowledge the Pope as head of their Church.

The SSPX did not leave the Roman Catholic Church…

The SSPX did not choose to “have the decency to leave”, they did no such thing…

As far as the SSPX are concerned they view themselves as still being within the Roman Catholic Church and still regard the Pope as their leader, even though they attack Church teachings, defy the Pope’s authority and snipe at the Pope on a regular basis (making accusations of heresy etc.) They did not honourably walk away.

It remains my position that SSPX did in effect walk away from the Church by publicly denouncing the Holy Father’s authority, the new Mass, etc, and by claiming to be the remnant of the one true Catholic Church. (Some groups, thank God, have broken away from the SSPX and have returned to Peter). SSPX has no canonical status or legitimate ministries.

My point is that SSPX did not fake an allegiance to Rome as some scandalous liberals do. The SSPX’s course, I believe, was the more open and honest, but who cares?

 

[KSU]

Yes. The teachings of the Church as declared at Vatican II, NOT new teachings of the Church. Vatican II did indeed state teachings of our Church and gave us the Church’s current interpretation of these teachings. We are not at liberty to take issue with Vatican II interpretation of the teachings declared at that Ecumenical Council.
And you accused me of saying that Vatican II declared NEW teachings. That is what I took issue with.
I never said, or even implied that there were any NEW teachings at Vatican II, but there were indeed clear interpretations of Church teachings given, and we are bound by those interpretations.
You are indeed putting words into my mouth, even with this last statement. I have never tried to maintain that I did not say “the teachings of the Church as declared as Vatican II”, you are putting words into my mouth here. What I did say is that I have never said that there were any new teachings declared at Vatican II.

Brendan, for goodness sake, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Context has meaning, whether you admit it or not. Moreover, you did not say “interpretations” in your post #756.

All I wanted you to do is say that there were no new teaching in the documents of V II. You have done so. End of debate.

 

[Ender]

I supported the ordination of women to all levels of Catholic ministry, and still hope the church changes its mind on this.

I think this is the most common misperception about the church: that the positions it expresses on various topics represent the ideas of its leaders. In fact, as JPII said on this topic, the church has no authority to confer ordination on women. She doesn’t get to make that decision so she can never “change her mind.”

I also greatly questioned the Pope and the structure of the church, which in my opinion, is authoritarian and leaves no room for dissent.

There is no room for dissent, that is certainly true, and the reason for this is what the church believes about herself. “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God … has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” (Dei Verbum) If one cannot accept that then it would be unreasonable to be a Catholic.

“I don’t believe in this Church. Why am I still part of it?”

You made the rational choice (which is not necessarily the right choice). The question is why others don’t do the same as you did?

I respect traditionalists in the church and their opinion, but felt they did not respect mine, nor my right to disagree.

There is no right to disagree. Either the church is who she claims to be, which is the one true church, or she isn’t. If she isn’t then it is reasonable to reject her and everything she claims to be, but if she is then disagreeing with her is tantamount to disagreeing with Christ and clearly no one has that right.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

The teachings of the Church are the teachings if the Church…This also includes the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II. It seems to me that there are a fair few within our Church who knock ‘liberals’ for not keeping to the Church’s teachings, yet they themselves seem to think it is perfectly OK to ignore, or even reject, the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

What “teachings” of Vatican 2 do you believe were issued, and of those, which do you think some people “ignore or reject?”

Thank you in advance.

 

[DeaconPaulY]

Did they? I think you’ll find that the SSPX still maintain that they are part of the Roman Catholic Church, and that they acknowledge the Pope as head of their Church.

The SSPX did not leave the Roman Catholic Church. The bishops of the SSPX were suspended by the Church for acting in defiance of the authority of Rome. As a result the SSPX has no canonical status within the Church, and the Church regards the organisation as having committed a schismatic act. The SSPX on the other hand regards itself as very much still a part of the Roman Catholic Church.

The SSPX did not choose to “have the decency to leave”, they did no such thing. They were happy to remain within the Church and defy the authority of the Pope, and continue to condemn an Ecumenical Council of the Church. It was Rome that suspended their bishops. The SSPX did not walk away on a point of principle.

As far as the SSPX are concerned they view themselves as still being within the Roman Catholic Church and still regard the Pope as their leader, even though they attack Church teachings, defy the Pope’s authority and snipe at the Pope on a regular basis (making accusations of heresy etc.) They did not honourably walk away.

we have the dubious distinction of having an SSPX church right next to our faithfully Catholic church. ironically, it was built for them by the man who owns the local trash company. They not only fly the American flag on their flagpole, but right below it, the papal flag. when challenged about that by our Bishop, they replied, “we are in union with ‘eternal’ Rome, even though we may not be in union with a specific pope.” it would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic. Please pray for them. Peace and Blessings, Deacon Paul

 

[Casey123]

You made the rational choice (which is not necessarily the right choice). The question is why others don’t do the same as you did?

Thank you, Ender, though I would disagree only in the sense that I made the right choice for me, which is not to say that it would be the right choice for someone else. For me, the question was whether or not I believed in the Church’s teachings on the issues I spoke of, and I concluded that I did not. However, for another person, the essential question itself may be different. Someone’s reasons for disagreement with the Church or reasons for considering leaving the Church may be different from what I experienced, so I cannot provide you with a definitive answer to your question because, largely, I believe there is no one definitive answer. All I can do is offer you my own insight on the question based on what my history was with the subject. I suggest you speak with other people who left the Church or are currently speaking of leaving, and listen to their stories and hear their reasoning.

For me, the last question I asked myself before I sent the letter to the bishop and sat my family down was whether or not I’m respecting both myself and the Catholic Church by remaining a member. The answer I came to was no: I wasn’t respecting myself because I could not reconcile my beliefs with Catholic teaching, and I wasn’t respecting the Catholic Church because I was lying to my neighbors and to God each time I recited the Nicene Creed (“We believe in One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church”).

I would be interested to hear what others have experienced in similar situations and the conclusions they drew for themselves and how they ended up handling it. I’m more interested to learn how people that (yes, contrary to Church teaching) disagree with the Church and chose to remain in it spiritually reconciled their beliefs with Catholic Doctrine.

This is a sensitive matter from the perspective of someone who’s “been there” before. It was a difficult decision to make because while I was certain of my decision, there were social and familial ramifications to my decision. I live in a very Catholic area in the US, and if one is a non-Catholic Christian, there are unwritten social codes that are unfortunately abided by; which count doubly for those who voluntarily leave the Church, which was something to consider. I also didn’t want to disappoint my family, which was my second major concern, and stayed about 6 months longer because I felt that choosing to leave the Church might have the unintended effect of being a subliminal slap in the face to them. I didn’t want them to think of my departure as though I was rebuffing how they raised me, you know? I wanted them to understand, which they eventually did, and now, we’re all pretty happy, even though we worship in different Churches (still makes for fun compare/contrast stories at Easter and Christmas though!).

Ender:

There is no right to disagree. Either the church is who she claims to be, which is the one true church, or she isn’t. If she isn’t then it is reasonable to reject her and everything she claims to be, but if she is then disagreeing with her is tantamount to disagreeing with Christ and clearly no one has that right.

Well, that’s certainly the Catholic Church’s view of it. It’s very “all or nothing” in the Catholic interpretation, which struck me as very Borg Collective-ish (for lack of a better way of putting it) and that’s certainly the Church’s right to not afford its members a right not to agree. One right I had, however, was to leave the Church, which I did.

How I understand my current relationship with the Catholic Church (apart from my family), is this: The Catholic Church still considers me a Catholic, but either a “fallen away” one or an “automatically excommunicated” one (because of the letter I sent to the bishop as well as the fact that I gave money to Planned Parenthood and public spoke out against Doctrine). The Episcopal Church has received me and considers me a full member as well as part of the laity and I march under their proverbial flag. I consider myself a full member of TEC, as well.

I still show the utmost respect to the Catholic Church (I.e., on CAF, I capitalize the word Church when referring to the RCC without the word Catholic attached, et. al.), because I was raised to respect people and their faiths, even if they are not my own. That’s pretty much the whole story.

This has been a much longer post than I originally intended it to be, but I hope you have a better understanding as to why some liberals leave the Church and some choose to stay.

 

[Brendan_64]

What “teachings” of Vatican 2 do you believe were issued,

I have never said that Vatican II issued new teachings. The Council did however re-clarify existing teachings giving clear interpretations of these teachings.

and of those, which do you think some people “ignore or reject?”

I have covered this in posts 758 and 759. I feel no need to repeat myself.

Thank you in advance.

You’re welcome.

 

[Brendan_64]

Brendan, for goodness sake, when you are in a hole, stop digging. Context has meaning, whether you admit it or not. Moreover, you did not say “interpretations” in your post #756.

All I wanted you to do is say that there were no new teaching in the documents of V II. You have done so. End of debate.

And I said that in post 758, but that didn’t stop you.

Did I ever say there were any “new teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II”? No I didn’t, so kindly don’t misquote me.

The Church restated certain teachings of the Church, and interpreted them for us.

If that is really all you wanted then why did you continue the debate? Why carry on trying to insist that I meant “new teachings” when I never said any such thing, and had in fact clarified this for you after your first query?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I have never said that Vatican II issued new teachings. The Council did however re-clarify existing teachings giving clear interpretations of these teachings.

I have covered this in posts 758 and 759. I feel no need to repeat myself.

So then, you did not mean what you said in post 756? (The one I quoted)

And if there were no new teachings, what is it about V2 that you assume that “some Catholics ignore or reject” despite being “bound” to accept?

 

[Elenorann]

I’m not a liberal Catholic in the sense that I support abortion, gay marriage or death penalty, because I’m against all that. I do not agree with all the Church teachings and still go to Church because I don’t believe God agrees with all the Churches teachings either. The Church tries, that’s all they can do.

 

[Brendan_64]

So then, you did not mean what you said in post 756? (The one I quoted)

And if there were no new teachings, what is it about V2 that you assume that “some Catholics ignore or reject” despite being “bound” to accept?

The interpretations set out by Vatican II concerning various existing teachings.

I have met Catholics that reject these interpretations. Catholics who insist that non-Catholics cannot be saved, that Muslims do not worship the same God as we do, that Catholics should not attend any services whatsoever in Protestant Churches etc. There are indeed Catholics that reject such things. I’ve even met a Catholic that used the term “heresy” to describe parts of Vatican II documents. there are also Catholics who speak about OF Mass in terms approaching contempt. Are you trying to tell me that there are not Catholics who hold such views?

 

[Brendan_64]

I’m not a liberal Catholic in the sense that I support abortion, gay marriage or death penalty, because I’m against all that. I do not agree with all the Church teachings and still go to Church because I don’t believe God agrees with all the Churches teachings either. The Church tries, that’s all they can do.

As Catholics we are not at liberty to decide which parts of the Church’s teachings we accept. we are bound to accept all the Church’s teachings, regardless of our own personal feelings on the issues. There are 1.2 billion of us, there cannot be 1.2 billion versions of the Truth. There can only be one version of the Truth.

 

[KSU]

…If that is really all you wanted [an admission that there were no new teachings in V II] then why did you continue the debate?

Because, Brendan, you keep saying that I misquoted you and put words in your mouth, despite the fact I quoted your own words–in full.

Here is your post #756:
QUOTE The teachings of the Church are the teachings of the Church.

It is not about whether or not a person is liberal. It is about staying firm with the teachings of the Church regardless of whatever one’s own personal inclinations and feelings are. This also includes the teachings of the Church declared at Vatican II. It seems to me that there are a fair few within our Church who knock ‘liberals’ for not keeping to the Church’s teachings, yet they themselves seem to think it is perfectly OK to ignore, or even reject, the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.

It is just as wrong to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is too ‘liberal’, as it is to reject a current Church teaching because you feel it is not ‘liberal’ enough. One position is just as bad as the other. END QUOTE

Your post can’t be read by an objective person as talking about mere interpretations being “declared”. You said “teachings” eight times, “interpretations” zero times.

Personally, Brendan, I think you are too intelligent and knowledgeable not to know that you made a simple mistake in language. No big deal, just stop saying I misquoted you.