Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[Casey123]

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.

Precisely why I left.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

And how many times did I say “new teachings”? Zero times.

Anyway I thought you had declared this debate over.

 

[Brendan_64]

Precisely why I left.

The trouble is Casey, ought we to leave something because we personally do not accept certain teachings? Do we decide then on what teachings we do accept and create our own individual Church based on those? How many different Christian Churches are acceptable? One for each individual Christian? Or do we go along the lines of, “one man, his own Bible, and his own individual interpretation”?

I’m not judging you by any means, just posing a question.

 

[MHT32]

Sorry for the late post, but what I dont like about some members of the Church is that they focus so much on people’s political beliefs. I mean, there were so many people in my church this past election season that acted like Romney was the embodiment of what the Church views a s good and that Obama was fully evil. I realized this once I went to a anti-abortion rally at the local abortion mill. There were the PP supporters with signs that said, “War is the ultimate abortion.” and it kinda hit me that most Pro-Life people weren’t out there for religious reasons. They were out there for political reasons. I realized that so many Catholics use religion to enforce their political beliefs and always refer to bad Catholics as “Liberal Catholics.” Honestly, thats the reason Im not practicing. Thats the reason my dad isnt practicing either. He is openly a Democrat and knows people will bother him about that if he goes to mass, which is why he stopped going. People really need to stop identifying Catholics as either Conservative or Liberal. People are acting like their political views define their relationship with God. I get that the Liberal view is more wrong than the Conservative view, but neither side is perfect. But there are plenty of great Liberal Catholics and there are a ton of bad Conservative Catholics. Until a candidate comes forward who fully supports what is right, there is no room to segregate those who think they are right from those who they think are wrong. And until people stop labeling members of the Church based off of their political beliefs, I probably wont come back. I hope this provoked some thought or something. But keep in mind, Im a 16 year old who has a way to go in life.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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

You possibly misunderstood – either the Council statement, or the Catholics you accuse. This is actually a technicality (not that I’m into such things – I’m not!). But salvation is still considered to be “through” the Church, so that there remains at least an indirect relationship of the non-Catholic to the Church. This was recently discussed slightly more by a guest on CAL. Again, I’m not fixed on such things, but there is apparently a misunderstanding regarding the dogma: what it was, and what it is.

catholic.com/magazine/articles/what-no-salvation-outside-the-church-means

…that Catholics should not attend any services whatsoever in Protestant Churches etc.

There’s still a general prohibition against joining such services (not “attending”). IOW, there can be no active “paticipation” except under certain formal approvals such as official ecumenical prayer events, etc. I think most Catholics understand that attendance for legitimate reasons (funerals, guests at weddings, etc.) is allowed.

I’ve even met a Catholic that used the term “heresy” to describe parts of Vatican II documents.

I did hear that with my own ears once, from a caller to CAL. Note that the host & guest criticized the caller’s statement (rejected it outright). The host then described the caller as “a radical traditionalist who rejects V2 completely, and there are a minority who do so, but those Catholics are not in communion with Rome.” (paraphrase, but close)

there are also Catholics who speak about OF Mass in terms approaching contempt.

See above comment. (It’s the same group.) I have never heard a non-“radical traditionalist” speak contemptuously of V2. However, I have heard, heard about, and read (not limited to this forum) hundreds of faithful Catholics speak contemptuously of the many abuses, errors, misinterpretations which followed V2, and which frankly probably most Catholics now associate with V2.

Are you trying to tell me that there are not Catholics who hold such views?

The number of Catholics who claim that the actual literal official statements of V2 are “heresy” is such a negligible number that it is not worth wasting our keystrokes on. For example, the caller I mentioned above is, IIRC, part of some tiny, private group that holds their own Eucharists in a manner which they believe is more authentic than what’s typical in parishes. I have no idea if the presider of such Eucharists is a validly ordained priest in communion with Rome, or if he is from a splinter group. Just don’t have information about that, but I do know that her group will not attend Mass in any diocesan parish.

Also, I’m actually not convinced that she rejects all of V2, but it does appear --IIRC – that she rejects the N.O. I also have no idea as to whether alternatives to ***an English NO *** –alternatives which were re-affirmed by V2 – are available where she lives, because in so many places they are not. V2 did not do away with the Latin Mass. (One of the great misreads of the Council.) It additionally embraced Mass in the vernacular, and did not declare that Catholics were required to attend vernacular Masses. However, because of the wholesale (unauthorized) discarding of the Latin, many Catholics have found themselves with no alternatives to English Masses, which would in itself probably not be a problem (a respectful N.O.) for many of those Catholics had there not been such unauthorized relaxations of the form of the Mass, along with the change in language. Such lack of options certainly doesn’t excuse refusing to attend Mass (if that’s what she’s doing) with a validly ordained priest in communion with Rome, but again, I have no information that she and her small group are doing that.

Anyone who speaks contemptuously of the abuses and actual heresies which followed the Council is entitled to do so. Just as citizens of the U.S. are entitled to speak contemptuously about the great ignorance of the U.S. Constitution by many Americans – such as people who misapply the terms “equality” and “rights” where they do not belong.

 

[Brendan_64]

You possibly misunderstood – either the Council statement, or the Catholics you accuse. This is actually a technicality (not that I’m into such things – I’m not!). But salvation is still considered to be “through” the Church, so that there remains at least an indirect relationship of the non-Catholic to the Church.

No, I didn’t misunderstand. The person stated that unless someone is a Catholic they cannot be saved.

However, I have heard, heard about, and read (not limited to this forum) hundreds of faithful Catholics speak contemptuously of the many abuses, errors, misinterpretations which followed V2, and which frankly probably most Catholics now associate with V2.

And the association of such errors with Vatican II is wrong. An Ecumenical Council simply cannot be held responsible for abuses. To do so would be to hold the actions of the Holy Spirit responsible for abuses.

Anyone who speaks contemptuously of the abuses and actual heresies which followed the Council is entitled to do so.

Indeed they are, but they are not entitled to hold an Ecumenical Council responsible for the abuses that followed.

 

[Elizabeth502]

No, I didn’t misunderstand. The person stated that unless someone is a Catholic they cannot be saved.

There are individuals here and there who are ignorant (of the Church past, of the Church present.) However, far more individuals, proportionally, appear to be ignorant of what is allowed (now) by the Church than what has never changed. This is a crisis, until it gets addressed formally.

And the association of such errors with Vatican II is wrong. An Ecumenical Council simply cannot be held responsible for abuses.

Correct. But if effectively there has been much more unauthoritative inteprretation than authoritative, the association is understandable, especially because the defense of error continues to be attributed, falsely, to V2.

 

[KSU]

And how many times did I say “new teachings”? Zero times.

Right. And you also said V II declared kumquats good to eat zero times. So what?

I hereby declare this debate officially over, subject to automatic excommunication, latae sententiae (absent, of course, a new interpretation of the meaning of “Church teaching” declared by V III).

 

[Brendan_64]

Right. And you also said V II declared kumquats good to eat zero times. So what?

Are you sure you don’t mean star-fruit?

 

[Casey123]

The trouble is Casey, ought we to leave something because we personally do not accept certain teachings? Do we decide then on what teachings we do accept and create our own individual Church based on those? How many different Christian Churches are acceptable? One for each individual Christian? Or do we go along the lines of, “one man, his own Bible, and his own individual interpretation”?

I’m not judging you by any means, just posing a question.

And I’d be happy to answer these questions.

Ought we leave something because we personally do no accept certain teachings? In the case of the Catholic Church, which requires absolute conformity to its teachings, I would say yes. To stay would be an insult to oneself and to the organization itself, and one would be professing a lie by claiming themselves as a member and reciting the Nicene Creed. That’s my opinion. Others many come to a different conclusion, and find a way to reconcile their beliefs with Catholic teaching; and I wish them luck in doing so. I, however, was unable to, so I left.

Do we decide then on what teachings we do accept and create our own individual Church based on those? I believe that was a good portion of the Protestant Reformation. It’s happened before, it’ll happen again, so yes.

How many different Christian Churches are acceptable? One for each individual Christian? As many as are needed; I’ll elaborate in the next question…

Or do we go along the lines of, “one man, his own Bible, and his own individual interpretation”? 100% of the people will not comply with 100% of any one church’s teachings, no matter if that particular church wants them to or not. I may not agree with 100% of what my Church says, but I’m not required to. Debate and discussion are what fuel Protestant churches, and no two Protestants will agree on 100% of anything. The question is whether or not one has to completely agree with one’s church in order to be considered a good Christian and have a relationship with Christ - and the answer I have concluded is no, most definitely not. I am an Episcopalian because I believe in most of what the Church teaches and focuses on, and because it’s a church that has allowed me to commune with God in a deep and very personal way. I find it more fulfilling than other churches, and I am pleased with its structure and governing process. Instead of demanding conformity and prohibiting dissent, we’re all entitled to our own opinions and those opinions matter. If I want to view the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus Christ, I can. If I want to view it as the Bread of Heaven, the spiritual food and drink of God, I can. If I want to view it as both, I can. I have the freedom to come to God as I choose. I am quite comfortable with that, and feel very welcome and at home in doing so.

I’m not judging you by any means, just posing a question.

Obviously, you will likely disagree with me, and likely have a field day piecing apart my responses and issuing counter-responses, and I invite you to - open debate and the discussion of ideas is a very Protestant tradition! I enjoy it, as a matter of fact

 

[KSU]

My young friend, I hope you will learn before it’s too late that “politics” is a tool misused throughout history by powerful people who hate and fear the Roman Catholic Church.
If you ever come to believe and practice what the Church teaches, you, too, will be hated and feared by those who hate and fear Christ. According to the Vatican, thousands of Christians are killed each year simply because they profess Christianity. Here, in our country, political suppression of Christian practice has been underway for some time, and will get worse unless political action is taken to stop it.

I’m sorry that you have chosen the safe rout and dropped out. To each his own, but you have reached the age to at least begin to open your eyes about politics. In this country, politics is our way of life, and politics without Christian principle is the door to tyranny. So, don’t judge the current political battle with Liberalism until you understand why it’s going on.

Here are portions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which touch on politics:

CCC 1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”
CCC 1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism…
CCC 2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modern times with “communism” or “socialism.” …Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds…
CCC 2499 Moral judgment must condemn the plague of totalitarian states which systematically falsify the truth, exercise political control of opinion through the media, manipulate defendants and witnesses at public trials, and imagine that they secure their tyranny by strangling and repressing everything they consider “thought crimes.”
Manipulation of the Economy and the Poor
CCC 2427 Human work proceeds directly from persons created in the image of God and called to prolong the work of creation by subduing the earth, both with and for one another. Hence work is a duty: “If any one will not work, let him not eat.” Work honors the Creator’s gifts and the talents received from him. It can also be redemptive. By enduring the hardship of work in union with Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth and the one crucified on Calvary, man collaborates in a certain fashion with the Son of God in his redemptive work. He shows himself to be a disciple of Christ by carrying the cross, daily, in the work he is called to accomplish. Work can be a means of sanctification and a way of animating earthly realities with the Spirit of Christ. CCC 2444 “The Church’s love for the poor . . . is a part of
her constant tradition.” This love is inspired by the Gospel of the
Beatitudes, of the poverty of Jesus, and of his concern for the poor. Love for the poor is even one of the motives for the duty of working so as to “be able to give to those in need.” It extends not only to material poverty but also to the many forms of cultural and religious poverty.

 

[Ender]

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.

It isn’t so much that there isn’t a right to disagree - it makes no sense for a Catholic to disagree. Either the church is right in all of her major doctrines or she isn’t and if she isn’t then what she claims about herself is untrue and Catholicism is disproved. On the other hand, if her claims about herself are true then her doctrines are true and we are deceiving ourselves if we think otherwise.

So, yes - it is all or nothing nor could it be otherwise. This is what dissenters who remain in the church fail to understand.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I may not agree with 100% of what my Church says, but I’m not required to. Debate and discussion are what fuel Protestant churches, and no two Protestants will agree on 100% of anything.

How is this different than saying “Right is whatever I believe it to be”? If I believe something is right and you believe it is wrong I think it is necessary to accept either that one of us is mistaken or that right and wrong don’t really exist. This is the problem with making the individual the final arbiter of morality. If morality is whatever we believe it to be then the concept is meaningless.

Ender

 

[MHT32]

My young friend, I hope you will learn before it’s too late that “politics” is a tool misused throughout history by powerful people who hate and fear the Roman Catholic Church.
If you ever come to believe and practice what the Church teaches, you, too, will be hated and feared by those who hate and fear Christ. According to the Vatican, thousands of Christians are killed each year simply because they profess Christianity. Here, in our country, political suppression of Christian practice has been underway for some time, and will get worse unless political action is taken to stop it.

 

[KSU]

Thank you for your response, KSU. Im not complaining about those using politics against the Church. I understand that literally has been a problem ever since the Church began. Im annoyed by people in the Church who think you have to support a political figure or you’re not in the Church. I get that Liberalism has been a problem (especially in the Church in Europe) and I dont support it, however people in the Church dont have the right to say that someone doesnt belong just because of their political beliefs.

Also, I did come to believe what the Church teaches and I did practice for years. It just got to the point where it felt pointless. I have attempted to come back (And I still am trying to) but it just didnt feel right. Just felt like I couldnt associate myself with some people in the Church. Of course every institution in existence has its bad members, it just felt like the bad Catholics are a special kind of bad. Also felt like I was the only one my age who believed based off of reason and history, while everyone else my age that practiced only did so because they were told the Church was right or just off what they were taught in religion class (Im public schooled, most of my friends arent though) I just feel the scholarship isnt there in the younger Church. But anyway, dont want to get off topic. Thats just why Im not practicing

Not that you asked (in words), but here is some hard-learned advice: Get back to the Church. You will find it to be your anchor when life jumps up and bites you. And don’t worry about what friends say. Most importantly, ask the God who knew you and named you and loved you before he made the universe for help in figuring it all out. He never disappoints.

As Christ asked from the cross, develop a devotion to Mary, your other Mother. He loves to answer His Mother’s prayers on your behalf if they aid in your salvation.

Finally, read, read and read some more. Keep a Catholic dictionary handy–I like the John A. Hardon, S.J. version.

 

[beehumble]

Jesus addressed the issue of those who stay in the Church but don’t practice what is preached:
*
25 After the master of the house has arisen and locked the door, then will you stand outside knocking and saying, ‘Lord, open the door for us.’ He will say to you in reply, ‘I do not know where you are from.’

26 And you will say, ‘We ate and drank in your company* [Jesus here is also alluding to the Mass - to those who go to Mass each Sunday and receive Communion but do not live the Gospel outside of Church] *and you taught in our streets.’

27 Then he will say to you, ‘I do not know where (you) are from. Depart from me, all you evildoers!’

28 And there will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God and you yourselves cast out.*

God is not mocked; those who persist in following the form of the faith but deny its power to change them, those who attend Mass on Sunday and do evil towards neighbors Monday through Saturday, will not enter the Kingdom.

It does not suffice to be Catholic to enter the Kingdom; one must *live *the faith, says Jesus.

God bless you.

 

[Brendan_64]

Thank you for your very considered answers Casey.

There is probably no point in discussing the obedience and conformity to Church teachings as you are coming from a very different view of Church authority and purpose.

I would however like to look at the point you make on the Eucharist as an example.

If I want to view the Eucharist as the body and blood of Jesus Christ, I can. If I want to view it as the Bread of Heaven, the spiritual food and drink of God, I can. If I want to view it as both, I can. I have the freedom to come to God as I choose. I am quite comfortable with that, and feel very welcome and at home in doing so.

How can the Eucharist be both things, surely it is either the body and blood of Christ or it is not. How can it be something and at the same time not be something? If different people at the same service hold opposing views on its nature, then surely they cannot all be right?

That is often the problem with many Protestant Churches. If everyone is permitted to create their own individual versions of the truth, many of these versions directly contradicting the version of truth their neighbour holds, then how can they all be right? Surely then some of these people are holding false truths?

 

[Brendan_64]

people in the Church dont have the right to say that someone doesnt belong just because of their political beliefs.

Absolutely right. In fact no Catholic has the right to say that anyone, regardless of what they believe, say, or do doesn’t belong in the Church. I believe that it is a sinful act to do so.

Those who seek to align the Church with secular political standpoints are usually just using the Church to give credence to their own individual political views and to political parties. The Church is no more aligned with the Right than it is with the Left. The Church is above secular politics.

 

[Pug]

People don’t seem all that static to me over the course of their spiritual lives. Perhaps they “stay” because they are in movement. Moving closer to the Church or moving away. Where they are at the time puts them there, in the pew.

I know this was the case with me. I was moving towards the Church. Hopefully I still am. I do know that if you had asked me then why I was in the Church I would have said that God (the HS) led me there.

I didn’t know what a “liberal” was at the time. I realize now that is what I was according to a typical usage of that word. I’m really glad I didn’t meet anyone in that time who demonstrated total astonishment that I was in the Church. Of course, that is just the HS that I didn’t.

 

[Casey123]

How can the Eucharist be both things, surely it is either the body and blood of Christ or it is not. How can it be something and at the same time not be something? If different people at the same service hold opposing views on its nature, then surely they cannot all be right?

That is often the problem with many Protestant Churches. If everyone is permitted to create their own individual versions of the truth, many of these versions directly contradicting the version of truth their neighbour holds, then how can they all be right? Surely then some of these people are holding false truths?

I think you’re used to it simply being one, uniform belief, and that’s to be understood, that’s what you’re used to. The beauty of our service, for example, is that it doesn’t have to all be the same thing. For some, viewing it as the body and blood of Christ is how they commune with God. For others, myself included, viewing it as the Bread of Heaven, is how I see it, and that’s how I commune. That room to choose is left because different people come to God in different ways, and no one should be barred from the Lord’s table because they’re more comfortable reaching him in a different way than others. Much like Catholicism, this is all faith.

It’s not creating different versions of the truth, per se; because we accept that people within our church may believe differently than we do - I think, as a Catholic, and this isn’t at all meant to be an insult so please don’t take it as such, you’re not used to that freedom to believe as you choose, because the Church says one thing, and what the Church says is law. To many of us, that’s an alien concept. In spite of whatever minor differences we have in our beliefs, we are all united as brothers and sisters in Christ, and instead of trying to stamp out those differences, we celebrate them; it’s that diversity of belief that makes us individuals, and as individuals we choose to work together as a team, come together as a parish family, learn from one another as people, help each other as neighbors; and all of this in turn shapes and nourishes our faith, and sometimes minor beliefs may change from here to there, but we all march under the same banner (in my case, the Episcopal banner) - and we do so not because we have to, but because we choose to.