Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[je333]

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

Im annoyed by people in the Church who think you have to support a political figure or you’re not in the Church…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

Sorry to hear this MHT32… I encourage you to comeback. Do not let some of the people that annoy you in Church or those you couldn’t associate with be the reason for being discouraged in practicing the faith. Go practice it for yourself and God. He is the only one that you need to please. Your personal relationship with Him is the most important and should matter much, much more than your personal relationship with the other fellow members. God loves you and he wants you back. :hug3:

 

[Mike_SoCal]

Know them by their deeds. The spirit of Anti-Christ is everywhere and in every organization. How could a Bible Christian support abortion, weak work ethic, lies, and corruption?

Liberals stay in the church because they believe they will change it. Just look at the modern Episcopal church with their gay bishops for example. Many have left the church making the Liberals even more powerful.

Matthew 7:15-20

King James Version (KJV)

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

 

[andrewstx]

Okay, I don’t see liberal as a dirty word, neither do I see conservative as a dirty word.
I think both sides have their good and bad points.

I like to use life issues as an analogy.

Liberals see no problem with abortion but have problems with executions. While OTOH conservatives oppose abortion but have few issues with capitol punishment.

To me a life is a life and it’s Gods prerogative to take any life no matter at what stage.

I think both are wrong.

 

[Brendan_64]

Okay, I don’t see liberal as a dirty word, neither do I see conservative as a dirty word.
I think both sides have their good and bad points.

I like to use life issues as an analogy.

Liberals see no problem with abortion but have problems with executions. While OTOH conservatives oppose abortion but have few issues with capitol punishment.

To me a life is a life and it’s Gods prerogative to take any life no matter at what stage.

I think both are wrong.

Good post.

A person can be liberal, or even socialist, in terms of their political ideology and be completely in line with the teachings of the Church. A liberal does not have to support abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. to be a liberal. A socialist does not have to be an atheist to be a socialist.

The Catholic Church is not somehow more aligned with secular conservative politics, no matter how much conservatives try to imply that it is (conveniently overlooking parts of documents such as Cartitas in veritate). People ought to stop trying to associate their political ideology with the Church. The Church is above and beyond secular politics.

 

[Jessie5000]

The church was not designed for just conservatives. The church should welcome socialists, liberals, conservatives, or anyone else for that matter. When it comes to faith we should only adhere to the teachings of Christ who never ordained a particular form of political orientation. We are the people of God, not the people of the liberal left or conservative right.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Of course the Church is not a secular political organization, nor does it endorse political parties (although if often endorses particular positions of those parties when those positions have moral dimensions to them: i.e., social justice dimensions, Life issues, etc.)

Regarding this, however, this is not exactly what the Church teaches:

When it comes to faith we should only adhere to the teachings of Christ.

We are bound to follow the entire doctrine of the Catholic Church, regardless of whether Jesus specifically spoke it, and regardless of whether we privately interpret Jesus to have such a “teaching.” The teachings of the Church are based on scripture and sacred tradition, which covers a wide area. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the repository of the fullness of revelation, both what Jesus taught and what is known as The Deposit of Faith.

 

[je333]

Good post.

A person can be liberal, or even socialist, in terms of their political ideology and be completely in line with the teachings of the Church. A liberal does not have to support abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. to be a liberal. A socialist does not have to be an atheist to be a socialist.

The Catholic Church is not somehow more aligned with secular conservative politics, no matter how much conservatives try to imply that it is (conveniently overlooking parts of documents such as Cartitas in veritate). People ought to stop trying to associate their political ideology with the Church. The Church is above and beyond secular politics.

 

[Elizabeth502]

A person can be liberal, or even socialist, in terms of their political ideology and be completely in line with the teachings of the Church. A liberal does not have to support abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc. to be a liberal.

Not in today’s politics. I’m not sure when you last fact-checked the term liberal, but today it means definite alignment with

abortion, contraception, gay marriage etc.

I am not talking about any classic or philosophical definition of liberalism, but rather the political label. You brought it up; I didn’t. (Or certainly, you responded to others bringing it up.) If you called yourself a “liberal” in a political context in 2013 (or 2008), 100% of your audience would assume you embraced all the anti-morality which the Church officially opposes as a priority. If you declared you were against those popular preferences, your audience would declare you a conservative, definitely not a liberal.

Your terminology is simply not believable, Brendan. The Roman Catholic Church specifically opposes, by name, the liberal agenda of today’s politicians, an agenda which absolutely includes support for abortion, contraception, gay “marriage,” and much else. That, today – not long ago – is what a liberal is known for. To be a political liberal today is to be what is called in politics “a social liberal.” That’s a euphemism for ultimate moral permissiveness.

There have been some individual States, in the last 20 years, which have featured state candidates, some of whom could be described as socially liberal + fiscally conservative, but please name a creature in the last 12 years who is socially conservative + liberal in other areas (economics & other categories). It would be awesome to have such a candidate: someone who recognizes the priority of Life & Family issues but also the ways in which government should be appropriately generous to the poor & creative in providing labor incentives to the lower middle class & investment incentives to small business. I haven’t seen it recently. Such a candidate might be close to Catholic ideals, but such a candidate appears to be extinct as of late.

In any case, politics is not supposed to be discussed in the Apologetics forums, or at least in Social Justice, according to Ms. Bennett.

 

[KSU]

Elizabeth, it’s not possible, in this type of forum, to debate with dyed-in-the-wool defenders of liberal positions.

Endless Church teaching about the evils of abortion, homosexuality and Socialism notwithstanding, we still see on this board declarations that people can be liberal, or even socialist, in terms of their political ideology and be COMPLETELY in line with Church doctrine; the same shamefully straight-faced public rationalizations of our “Catholic leaders” when some of our clergy raises objections.

No person intelligent enough to post here is unaware of the fact that only one of our American political parties favors, and is more or less successfully attempting to immerse our culture into, the aforesaid evils. Nevertheless, we see iteration of the false-on-its-face theme that conservative political thought is not more in line with the teachings of the Catholic Church than liberal political thought–abortion, homosexuality and Socialism.

Debate is not possible, but instruction and advice to those who honestly seek it, of course, is.

Will the world ever again see the glories of a Catholic Europe or a Merry Old, pre-Henry VIII England? Can orthodox American Catholics prevent the same sad fate for our Country?

 

[Ender]

Liberals see no problem with abortion but have problems with executions. While OTOH conservatives oppose abortion but have few issues with capitol punishment.

First boy: My dad lost a leg in Afghanistan.
Second boy: Well, my dad got a big splinter in his hand fixing our chicken coop.

There is a similar lack of perspective in comparing abortion to capital punishment.

To me a life is a life and it’s Gods prerogative to take any life no matter at what stage.

I think both are wrong.

This is not what the church teaches:*Q. 1276. Under what circumstances may human life be lawfully taken?
A. Human life may be lawfully taken:

1. In self-defense…
2. In a just war…
3. By the lawful execution of a criminal… *(Baltimore Catechism)
   Ender

 

[Rachel126]

I suppose this might depend somewhat on your definition of a “liberal Catholic.”
If it means someone who disagrees with ANY present church teaching (contraception being the most obvious one, but there are others), if you genuinely are suggesting they all leave the Church, there wouldn’t be a Church left. I saw a survey that stated approximately 97% of American Catholics have used or are using a form of birth control. I doubt Europe is different. What would happen if tomorrow that entire 97% of the church got up and left? We’d have to close the majority of our parishes. The entire church would financially collapse. This is the reality.
As for specifically why they stay, I believe most of them talk to their friends and family and find that they are in the same boat. They learn that individual Catholics who follow and agree with literally all of the Church’s teachings are few and far between. Most of them sincerely feel that they are morally correct, and that someday the Church will come around on certain things.

 

[Brendan_64]

Not in today’s politics. I’m not sure when you last fact-checked the term liberal, but today it means definite alignment with

I am not talking about any classic or philosophical definition of liberalism, but rather the political label. You brought it up; I didn’t. (Or certainly, you responded to others bringing it up.) If you called yourself a “liberal” in a political context in 2013 (or 2008), 100% of your audience would assume you embraced all the anti-morality which the Church officially opposes as a priority. If you declared you were against those popular preferences, your audience would declare you a conservative, definitely not a liberal.

Not necessarily. One can be a liberal in terms of economics, immigration and border controls, crime and punishment, decriminalisation of certain drugs, positive discrimination (affirmative action I think you call it in the USA), civil rights, freedom of the press, and much more.

Your terminology is simply not believable, Brendan. The Roman Catholic Church specifically opposes, by name, the liberal agenda of today’s politicians, an agenda which absolutely includes support for abortion, contraception, gay “marriage,” and much else. That, today – not long ago – is what a liberal is known for. To be a political liberal today is to be what is called in politics “a social liberal.” That’s a euphemism for ultimate moral permissiveness.

Perhaps where you come from, but in the UK, liberal politics is not defined by such issues. Issues such as immigration, crime and punishment, equal opportunities legislation, freedom of the press, and valuing social diversity as opposed to indigenous culture tend to identify as liberal values, rather than focusing on morality.

There have been some individual States, in the last 20 years, which have featured state candidates, some of whom could be described as socially liberal + fiscally conservative

I’m not from the USA so I can’t really comment on that.

but please name a creature in the last 12 years who is socially conservative + liberal in other areas (economics & other categories). It would be awesome to have such a candidate: someone who recognizes the priority of Life & Family issues but also the ways in which government should be appropriately generous to the poor & creative in providing labor incentives to the lower middle class & investment incentives to small business. I haven’t seen it recently. Such a candidate might be close to Catholic ideals, but such a candidate appears to be extinct as of late.

Here’s one for you? There are more but she’s the first one to come up after a quick google.

catholicherald.co.uk/features/2013/05/14/being-a-catholic-liberal-can-be-difficult/

Is this liberal Catholic in line with the teachings of our Church? Or would you classify her as a conservative because, as you say,

If you declared you were against those popular preferences, your audience would declare you a conservative, definitely not a liberal.

 

[Brendan_64]

Or would you classify the UK Conservative party as liberal because it was the current Conservative led coalition government that spearheaded Gay Marriage legislation?

 

[Ender]

Most of them sincerely feel that they are morally correct, and that someday the Church will come around on certain things.

Either they think the church will change or that they have a right to disagree with the church. Neither position is correct but it really is hard to fault them for believing this inasmuch as the bishops have done so little to correct these misconceptions. It is not a question of asking them to leave, however, but of teaching them the consequences of their choices.

Ender

 

[Rachel126]

Either they think the church will change or that they have a right to disagree with the church. Neither position is correct but it really is hard to fault them for believing this inasmuch as the bishops have done so little to correct these misconceptions. It is not a question of asking them to leave, however, but of teaching them the consequences of their choices.

Ender

Actually you cannot say that there is no possibility the church will ever change. It has and it does. Will it change on any particular subject? Hard to say. But change it will. Ask an elderly priest if, as a young man, he ever thought it would be possible to have Eucharistic ministers, or female altar servers.

 

[Rachel126]

Either they think the church will change or that they have a right to disagree with the church. Neither position is correct but it really is hard to fault them for believing this inasmuch as the bishops have done so little to correct these misconceptions. It is not a question of asking them to leave, however, but of teaching them the consequences of their choices.

Ender

I agree with you though that it’s hard to fault them for believing this because priests and bishops have done so little about any of it. Why do you think that is? I submit, with all due respect, that it could be because of the consequences i outlined in my earlier post…that people would leave the church in droves. They are already leaving, of course, but this would cause complete collapse.

 

[Joyce_Elaine]

Well said SouthernCelt!!!

 

[Ender]

Actually you cannot say that there is no possibility the church will ever change. It has and it does. Will it change on any particular subject? Hard to say. But change it will. Ask an elderly priest if, as a young man, he ever thought it would be possible to have Eucharistic ministers, or female altar servers.

You need to distinguish between doctrinal changes and changes in customs. The church can and has changed the things she controls, the form of the mass for example and the practice of celibacy for priests. What she cannot change, however, are her doctrines as these are not hers to change. She has no more authority to change them than she has to change physical laws. This is why she may allow female altar servers and why she can never allow female priests. The first is a practice, the second is (infallible) doctrine.

I agree with you though that it’s hard to fault them for believing this because priests and bishops have done so little about any of it. Why do you think that is? I submit, with all due respect, that it could be because of the consequences i outlined in my earlier post…that people would leave the church in droves. They are already leaving, of course, but this would cause complete collapse.

I think it is more likely people leave because it appears the church doesn’t believe what she professes. Why would people take Catholicism seriously if even her bishops don’t appear to? If Jesus was content to preach the “hard sayings” and accept the consequences then one should expect the same from the bishops.

Ender

 

[KSU]

…I think it is more likely people leave because it appears the church doesn’t believe what she professes. Why would people take Catholicism seriously if even her bishops don’t appear to? If Jesus was content to preach the “hard sayings” and accept the consequences then one should expect the same from the bishops.

Ender

That appears to be a good insight as to why people left and still leave the Church. I haven’t heard it much lately, but it was a hot topic shortly after the “Spirit of Vatican II” disaster became undeniable–a lost treasury of music, architecture, clear teaching, reverence, courage to speak the truth, and finally a lost generation of souls.

There isn’t a clearer indication that the Holy Spirit truly guided the outcome of the Council than the fact that the Church has taken Satan’s best shot and survived (as promised by Christ) despite the attempts during and after the Council by Socialists, homosexuals and assorted liberals.

The designed ambiguities in the documents of the Council will be purged, and the real Council finally will be implemented. Those of us–if any-- young enough to see it happen will experience an amazing new Springtime of the Roman Catholic Church. And, no, I am not referring to the nonsense–understandable, but still nonsense–underlying the SSPX.

In the meantime, our Holy Father and a handful of bishops are doing a good job of speaking out and calling a spade a spade.

 

[Rachel126]

You need to distinguish between doctrinal changes and changes in customs. The church can and has changed the things she controls, the form of the mass for example and the practice of celibacy for priests. What she cannot change, however, are her doctrines as these are not hers to change. She has no more authority to change them than she has to change physical laws. This is why she may allow female altar servers and why she can never allow female priests. The first is a practice, the second is (infallible) doctrine.
I think it is more likely people leave because it appears the church doesn’t believe what she professes. Why would people take Catholicism seriously if even her bishops don’t appear to? If Jesus was content to preach the “hard sayings” and accept the consequences then one should expect the same from the bishops.

Ender

You speak about the difference between doctrinal changes and changes in customs. We can talk about those on a Catholic message board, but the simple fact of the matter is that the average Catholic in the pews does not know the difference. This affects their understanding of issues and changes in the church–past, present and future.

You are right about issues with leadership. Just one example–young people are usually taught in CCD about how they should save sex for marriage. They usually stop going to CCD after they are confirmed in 7th or 8th grade, and that is that. As they enter young adulthood (if they stay in the church at all) they see their Catholic friends engaging in intimacy and even cohabitation. Sometimes even having children out of wedlock. Their families often give explicit or implicit approval to such relationships. They also see those same cohabiting friends be married in the church by a priest. There are plenty of priests who don’t bat an eye about the living together situation. They see their friends with out of wedlock kids baptize them in the church. The sum total of all of this is that they believe there is an approval given not only by family and society, by even by the priests to these things. They eventually write off what they learned in 7th grade CCD as being hopelessly out of date (if they really remember it at all, by that point). You don’t need to explain to me why this is not true and that the priests really don’t approve. I know that. I am just trying to explain how people can arrive at a certain point of view, and 100% believe sincerely that what they think/do is okay.