Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[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.

Few people would argue that the average Catholic is well catechized but I think the single biggest weakness lies in the understanding of the role of the conscience. If Catholics know anything at all in the catechism it would have to be this sentence:1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
This is, not surprisingly, often taken to mean “If I’m OK with it then it’s right for me to do it.” This is very likely what leads people to believe they are free to disagree with church teaching on contraception, homosexual behavior, abortion, and any number of precepts that are personally inconvenient. If there is one thing the clergy ought to address I think it would be this.

Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

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.

All of that makes sense in terms of concluding that observed behavior is the more powerful teacher. However, this part is somewhat hard to believe, except as an occasional, atypical example:

There are plenty of priests who don’t bat an eye about the living together situation.

I think that’s a statement that is open to some challenge. (“Plenty of” and “don’t bat an eye”) Be careful of confusing this:

out of wedlock kids baptize them in the church

with ***the priest who approves the baptism “not batting an eye.” *** In itself the previous sin of fornication which produced the child does not disqualify the child from baptism. The priest would make some effort to ascertain that the couple intends henceforth to live a Catholic lifestyle. (They may lie about that, convincingly, or they may have told the truth about that, and on the priest’s conviction of their sincerity — all of which is privileged information, out of hearing of “their friends,” the child is baptized.)

You don’t need to explain to me why this is not true and that the priests really don’t approve. I know that.

That is an issue surrounding the gullibility of youth and impulsive assumptions, as well as a habit of (their) superficial review of the situation. That’s a maturity issue, not a specifically Catholic issue. Not signfiicantly different from “I read it on the internet; ergo, it’s true.”

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.

**That ^ **, however, is an issue of adult irresponsibility and laziness. Even a fully staffed Church, with vocations overflowing and vibrant CCD classes, cannot sustain an adult’s engagement with his or her faith throughout a lifetime. IOW, adults who were (and possibly know that they were) poorly catechized are nevertheless bound by their Confrmation to puruse understanding of the faith, regardless of how easy or difficult that is. OTOH, I have always maintained that the key period is precisely the period between Confirmation and adulthood, and it’s where both the catechesis and the outreach toward this population diminishes. (Opposite movement.)

Second, Confirmation itself – the age of it, the preparation for it, the follow-up after that --has receded in value during the most secular period so far in Church history, when this age group which is forming their values most needs the support of the Church.

The two largest areas of catechetical need right now are:

Adults (Emergency Level)
Adolescents (Crisis Level)

Yet these are the two most neglected levels in the Church, resulting in basic but wide-reaching confusions about doctrine and discipline.

 

[Jessie5000]

Martin Luther left the church for various reasons. When he posted his complaints, Today, the Catholic church has agreed with some of his points. In fact, the reformation caused a counter reformation within our church which ameliorated many problems within Catholicism.

Just because we are Catholic does not mean the church is right about everything… there are only a few infallible statements. The Church can still be wrong about things such believing the earth was the centre of the universe - it just took us a long time to admit we were wrong.

Today, there are issues such as the role of women, contraception, and other issues.

Around the time of Luther lived St. Ignatius who had many complaints and would have been considered very liberal in his time. He wondered if he should leave the church as Luther did. He decided to stay, and work within the church to advocate and bring about change rather than starting his own church and wounding the body of christ via division.

Kf we look at the early church, we are aware that there has always been divergent views, opinions and conficts over teachings. It is the same today. I think it is good these liberal members stay as they cause us to reflect upon our beliefs and sometimes adapt theses beliefs.

We know that the kingdom of God is eschatological in nature - this means it is unfolding and that we gain new and deeper insights throughout history. We only need to look at the debate over slavery between Spulvida and delas Casas in the court of spain to see this in action. Today, we are one church made-up of people from different cultural perspectives and differing views… Liberals and conservatives of both have a role to play in our church. We forget that Christ was a pretty radical figure in his time and many High Priests in Isreal were not impressed.

I am happy for the diversity - and yes, there is diversity of opinion between Bishops, priests and laity. I also believe is is wrong to demonize the liberal or the conservative.

 

[Rachel126]

Few people would argue that the average Catholic is well catechized but I think the single biggest weakness lies in the understanding of the role of the conscience. If Catholics know anything at all in the catechism it would have to be this sentence:1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.
This is, not surprisingly, often taken to mean “If I’m OK with it then it’s right for me to do it.” This is very likely what leads people to believe they are free to disagree with church teaching on contraception, homosexual behavior, abortion, and any number of precepts that are personally inconvenient. If there is one thing the clergy ought to address I think it would be this.

Ender

You are correct with the sentence you highlight about conscience. This is exactly what most point to.
Some people are genuinely more easily influenced by their peers and society.
It’s impossible to know exactly what goes on in another person’s heart, mind, conscience. Only God knows. For that reason, it’s difficult for me to condemn any individual for disagreeing with any particular teaching. Based on conversations with some of them, they are fully sincere and believe they are acting morally. Yet the Church says they are going to hell. It’s difficult.

 

[Brendan_64]

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.

So what would you have priests do? Go up to couples living out of wedlock and admonish and condemn them? What effect do you think that would have? Drive them out of the Church more like. Just because priests do not point fingers at people and condemn them doesn’t mean their actions are approved of.

And as for baptising children of unmarried parents. Would you rather innocent children were prevented from being baptised as Christians? Are they too guilty of their parents’ sins?

If would be very surprised if you found any priest (traditionalist or non-traditionalist) who would approve of couples living out of wedlock. The teaching of our Church is very clear, sexual relations of any kind, outside of marriage is considered a sin. That has not changed, and their is no prospect of it changing. However, calling people out on this and rebuking them is often not the way to go about leading these people fully back to the Church, and having them one day receive the grace of the Sacrament of Marriage.

 

[Brendan_64]

Based on conversations with some of them, they are fully sincere and believe they are acting morally.

Sincere belief in itself does not make an action morally right. Morality is not subjective.

Yet the Church says they are going to hell.

Incorrect.

The Church has never said that anyone is going to Hell (no matter what they have done). That is not the Church’s role. God judges people, the Church does not. The Church however has a duty to advise people on actions that it understands to be sinful. The Church NEVER says that any particular person, or groups of people, are going to Hell.

 

[Rachel126]

So what would you have priests do? Go up to couples living out of wedlock and admonish and condemn them? What effect do you think that would have? Drive them out of the Church more like. Just because priests do not point fingers at people and condemn them doesn’t mean their actions are approved of.

And as for baptising children of unmarried parents. Would you rather innocent children were prevented from being baptised as Christians? Are they too guilty of their parents’ sins?

If would be very surprised if you found any priest (traditionalist or non-traditionalist) who would approve of couples living out of wedlock. The teaching of our Church is very clear, sexual relations of any kind, outside of marriage is considered a sin. That has not changed, and their is no prospect of it changing. However, calling people out on this and rebuking them is often not the way to go about leading these people fully back to the Church, and having them one day receive the grace of the Sacrament of Marriage.

No, I am not at all saying that priests should refuse to baptize such children, or should publicly call out couples for living together. No. I don’t know what the answers are, truly. My point is simply to explain how SO many young people grow up to sincerely believe that certain teachings of the church are out of date, no longer applicable to modern life, etc., while still believing in God and seeking faith. Lots and lots of contributing factors to this. Many here join in a wholesale condemnation of these people, but I am unable to.

 

[Brendan_64]

Many here join in a wholesale condemnation of these people, but I am unable to.

In that I would agree with you. We should not condemn people. That does not however mean that they are right in what they do (even if they do it sincerely). The teachings of the Church on faith and morals are absolute.

The ‘style’ of our Church may change, the approach of the Church may change, the disciplines of the Church may change (perhaps we will have married clergy), liturgically the Church may change, but the Church will not change with regards to faith and morals. The Church’s teaching on marriage between man and woman as the only place for sexual relations will not change, regardless of how many people consider this to be ‘outdated’. The Church does not base it’s teachings on the secular values of this modern world.

 

[Rachel126]

In that I would agree with you. We should not condemn people. That does not however mean that they are right in what they do (even if they do it sincerely). The teachings of the Church on faith and morals are absolute.

The ‘style’ of our Church may change, the approach of the Church may change, the disciplines of the Church may change (perhaps we will have married clergy), liturgically the Church may change, but the Church will not change with regards to faith and morals. The Church’s teaching on marriage between man and woman as the only place for sexual relations will not change, regardless of how many people consider this to be ‘outdated’. The Church does not base it’s teachings on the secular values of this modern world.

I agree with you.
However, the fact remains that an ever-increasing number of Catholics are ignoring this teaching about reserving sex for marriage. Actually it isn’t just Catholics, most protestant denominations teach the same thing, and they are being ignored as well (it seems the evangelicals are more likely to listen, the mainline protestants ignore it in great numbers).
I feel there is great, great pressure on our young people to fit in with their peers and do what everyone else does, which usually involves sex before marriage. Combine that with hormones and a genuine desire to be loved and feel that a boyfriend/girlfriend will leave you if you want to remain chaste–many find this combination of factors too much to overcome. Should we believe that God will withhold his mercy from them?

 

[Brendan_64]

I feel there is great, great pressure on our young people to fit in with their peers and do what everyone else does, which usually involves sex before marriage. Combine that with hormones and a genuine desire to be loved and feel that a boyfriend/girlfriend will leave you if you want to remain chaste–many find this combination of factors too much to overcome. Should we believe that God will withhold his mercy from them?

That is nothing new. That’s been happening for many decades. It was like that when I was young, and I’m approaching 50, and I’m sure it was like that for people a lot older than me. I slept around a bit when I was young, most other people I know did the same back in the 1970’s and 1980’s. People sin, they always have done. It isn’t very different today than it was in the past. The hope is that, in time, they see what they have done was wrong, seek forgiveness and return back.

Nobody is saying that God will withhold his mercy from anyone. The Church certainly isn’t saying this. However, the Church has a duty to point out what is sin. If people choose to ignore that message then they have the gift of free will to do so, but it doesn’t make it OK to do so.

No we cannot say that God will withhold his mercy, but neither can we say that he won’t withhold his mercy. That is up to God. The Church certainly doesn’t say what God will do, However the Church has a duty to try to educate people on what is and what isn’t considered sinful. Or do you think the Church should neglect its duties in this regard?

 

[JimG]

I agree with you.
However, the fact remains that an ever-increasing number of Catholics are ignoring this teaching about reserving sex for marriage. Actually it isn’t just Catholics, most protestant denominations teach the same thing, and they are being ignored as well (it seems the evangelicals are more likely to listen, the mainline protestants ignore it in great numbers).
I feel there is great, great pressure on our young people to fit in with their peers and do what everyone else does, which usually involves sex before marriage. Combine that with hormones and a genuine desire to be loved and feel that a boyfriend/girlfriend will leave you if you want to remain chaste–many find this combination of factors too much to overcome. Should we believe that God will withhold his mercy from them?

God will never withhold mercy from anyone. The fact remains, though, that widespread social acceptance of immorality has social and cultural consequences. What we have experienced in the years since the sexual revolution has been deep societal dysfunction: rampant fornication, soaring out of wedlock birth rates, collapsing families, fatherless children, soaring abortion as back up birth control, the loss of childhood innocence, a civilization spiraling downward. It’s not God doing that to us, we do that to ourselves. Mary Eberstadt lays out the statistics in her book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”

A culture can only decline so far before it collapses completely into chaos.

 

[KSU]

God will never withhold mercy from anyone. The fact remains, though, that widespread social acceptance of immorality has social and cultural consequences. What we have experienced in the years since the sexual revolution has been deep societal dysfunction: rampant fornication, soaring out of wedlock birth rates, collapsing families, fatherless children, soaring abortion as back up birth control, the loss of childhood innocence, a civilization spiraling downward. It’s not God doing that to us, we do that to ourselves. Mary Eberstadt lays out the statistics in her book “Adam and Eve After the Pill.”

A culture can only decline so far before it collapses completely into chaos.

Good post, JimG. And it’s not just our culture that is in danger of going to hell; far more importantly, individuals whose acts bring about such collapse and chaos are in such danger as well. If they know in their hearts about the wrong and evil they do, but reject such knowledge and refuse to embrace God’s mercy, according to never-changing Church teaching they end up in hell. God writes His laws on every heart, but we are free to reject it and choose spiritual suicide, i.e., send ourselves to hell.

We hear that the Church never has said anyone is going to hell; that only God judges people. Well, that’s true as far as it goes, but standing alone it often is misinterpreted. It therefore is very much in vogue among self-deluding Catholic liberals. In fact, I believe it is a major reason for the current widespread social acceptance of immorality in our country. We are becoming “science”-worshiping Europe because we are rejecting the Church’s
(i.e.,God’s) teachings about hell.

The truth is that the Church always has taught that the fallen angels and people who die deliberately estranged from God’s mercy go to hell. When’s the last time you heard that little reminder from the pulpit, or even read it in the parish bulletin? Yet without that fear of seriously offending God, how many of us could overcome the world, the flesh and the Devil?

 

[Brendan_64]

We hear that the Church never has said anyone is going to hell; that only God judges people. Well, that’s true as far as it goes, but standing alone it often is misinterpreted. It therefore is very much in vogue among self-deluding Catholic liberals.

And how exactly is this being misinterpreted by ‘liberal’ Catholics? How else can it be interpreted other than the Church has never said that any particular person is going to Hell, that only God will judge, not man, not the Church?

Once we put ourselves in a position of not just explicitly judging, but even implying that certain individuals or groups of individuals will be going to Hell, then we are at the very least assuming to know the mind of God, and possibly even putting ourselves in the position of God in judging others.

Matthew 7:1 is pretty clear and unambiguous “Judge not, that you be not judged.”

We must not, ever, judge anyone on the basis of their actions, or anything else about them. We are called to reach out indiscriminately with charity, love and compassion, equally to all people, and unconditionally with no thought as to whether we consider them to be sinners or otherwise. Jesus did exactly that, and we are called to do the same.

We are here to love our fellow man unconditionally and spread the Word that Jesus taught us. We are not here to judge anyone. If we judge others and condemn them as sinners we are doing the opposite of what Jesus taught us, and we are putting our own souls in very serious danger.

If we exalt ourselves above some of our fellow men and look upon them with criticism, we are in danger of becoming like the Pharisee looking upon the Tax Collector. Who, does the parable suggest, is more likely to end up in Heaven, the devout Pharisee, or the sinful Tax Collector?

Archbishop Tutu said, “We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven. God has a soft spot for sinners. His standards are quite low.” There may be more than a grain of truth in that.

 

[Ender]

Matthew 7:1 is pretty clear and unambiguous “Judge not, that you be not judged.”

We must not, ever, judge anyone on the basis of their actions, or anything else about them.

This is not what that passage means. It is not all judgment that is forbidden, only improper judgments. Thou shalt not judge. (Mt 7:1) In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states. (Aquinas ST II-II 60, 2 ad 1)

*Judgment is lawful in so far as it is an act of justice. *(II-II 60,2)

If we judge others and condemn them as sinners we are doing the opposite of what Jesus taught us, and we are putting our own souls in very serious danger.

Not all judgment is forbidden. In fact the magistrate has a duty to judge.Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence. (II-II 60,2)
Ender

 

[Rachel126]

And how exactly is this being misinterpreted by ‘liberal’ Catholics? How else can it be interpreted other than the Church has never said that any particular person is going to Hell, that only God will judge, not man, not the Church?

Once we put ourselves in a position of not just explicitly judging, but even implying that certain individuals or groups of individuals will be going to Hell, then we are at the very least assuming to know the mind of God, and possibly even putting ourselves in the position of God in judging others.

Matthew 7:1 is pretty clear and unambiguous “Judge not, that you be not judged.”

We must not, ever, judge anyone on the basis of their actions, or anything else about them. We are called to reach out indiscriminately with charity, love and compassion, equally to all people, and unconditionally with no thought as to whether we consider them to be sinners or otherwise. Jesus did exactly that, and we are called to do the same.

We are here to love our fellow man unconditionally and spread the Word that Jesus taught us. We are not here to judge anyone. If we judge others and condemn them as sinners we are doing the opposite of what Jesus taught us, and we are putting our own souls in very serious danger.

If we exalt ourselves above some of our fellow men and look upon them with criticism, we are in danger of becoming like the Pharisee looking upon the Tax Collector. Who, does the parable suggest, is more likely to end up in Heaven, the devout Pharisee, or the sinful Tax Collector?

Archbishop Tutu said, “We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven. God has a soft spot for sinners. His standards are quite low.” There may be more than a grain of truth in that.

 

[Brendan_64]

This is not what that passage means. It is not all judgment that is forbidden, only improper judgments

Yes, and judgement is for those who have authority to judge (as all authority comes from God). However that does not include the Catholic laity (who have been given no authority to judge).Without authority from God, one’s judgements will indeed be improper.

Not all judgment is forbidden. In fact the magistrate has a duty to judge.

And a magistrate has been given authority to judge, unlike the Catholic laity (be they ‘traditionalist’, ‘liberal’ or whatever).

Now it follows from what has been stated above (1, ad 1,3) that three conditions are requisite for a judgment to be an act of justice: first, that it proceed from the inclination of justice; secondly, that it come from one who is in authority; thirdly, that it be pronounced according to the right ruling of prudence.

And as you say it must come from one who is in authority with regard to that particular area of jurisdiction. The Pharisee had no authority to judge the Tax Collector, yet he believed that he was right to do so because of what he perceived to be the tax Collector’s sinful actions.

For lay people to judge any of their fellow man on the basis of his deeds is acting in contradiction to what Jesus taught us. A lay person is at risk of putting his soul in grave peril by judging his fellow man (even if he sees them committing what he regards as serious sin).

Who is more likely to be saved? A sinner who has committed the most grave sins and eventually repents, or one who hasn’t sinned? God does not keep a tally chart of sins to use when deciding who will, and who will not enter His kingdom.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Clarifying, for those interested in what the Church says:

I’m too lazy to find the most recent link about this, probably from an EWTN or CAL program, but the summary of it is this:

The Church never states definitively who is and is not going to Hell. To presume so, would be to have omniscience, which would be a heresy, since only God is omniscient. That is, despite what any of us sinners do or say IRL, out loud, no one except God Himself knows what will be happening, or has happened, while we sinners are actually in the process of dying. Maybe a believer (practicing Catholic) who has developed a habit of sin and been away from Confession, just made a perfect Act of Contrition, despite not being given Last Rites, Viaticum, etc.

Maybe a person from another faith who is not invincibly ignorant has embraced God at the moment of death. (The Church wouldn’t know that either, and the Church has acknowledged that.)

Maybe someone who behaved contemptuously toward Christians and all things religious has his hardened heart softened by God at the moment of death, with no outwad sign of that from the dying person.

Here, however, is what the Church does say about a knowingly wayward life, in or out of organized religion:

It is high-risk behavior. Do not count on last-minute opportunities to repent; we always hope there are, for all of us, and maybe they are there, universally, but we don’t know that. The more disposed we are toward God, in action, thought, & word, while alive and conscious (or, the more moral our behavior, in the case of someone who is invincibly ignorant) the more we are protecting ourselves in the event of a sudden death.

The Church does not go further than that. She talks about all the factors that make eternal separation probable, and all the factors that make union with God likely. And she comes down on the “likely” side as being the prudent choice, because not to do would be negligent on her part.

Lots of mystics have had convincing visions of Hell, with particular people living in that dimension, from the fruit of unrepented evil actions. I never assume that Hell does not exist. And all Catholics would be wise not to assume that.

 

[Brendan_64]

I never assume that Hell does not exist. And all Catholics would be wise not to assume that.

I would have thought that for any Catholic to assume Hell doesn’t exist (even if not as an actual place) would put him very much at odds with Church teaching.

Although the existence of Hell doesn’t mean any of us ought to be looking at anyone and saying, or even thinking, “They will go (or even probably or likely go) to Hell for their deeds”. We should look only to the pitful state of our own souls, rather than judge the state of the souls of others.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I would have thought that for any Catholic to assume Hell doesn’t exist (even if not as an actual place) would put him very much at odds with Church teaching.

You would have thought correctly. But, Brendan, if you think that the Catholic laity (and some, luckily a minority of, clergy) find the above an obstacle, then I must inform you that you either haven’t been watching what’s been going on, or you have been blissfully protected against the reality. It doesn’t bother such people to oppose the Church’s teaching of eternal damnation any more than it bothers them to oppose any other Church teaching. (Take your pick: female ordination, abortion, same-sex “marriage,” transubstantiation, etc.)

They are their own authority, despite never having been given that privilege of authority. And that would include the teaching about The Four Last Things. (Hey, why stop at merely one dogma, or one category of teaching? )

 

[Monkey1976]

Yes, and judgement is for those who have authority to judge (as all authority comes from God). However that does not include the Catholic laity (who have been given no authority to judge).Without authority from God, one’s judgements will indeed be improper.

What we don’t have the authority to do is judge the destination of a particular soul. What we do have both the authority and positive duty to do is judge the actions we witness. One of the spiritual works of mercy is to admonish the sinner - how can we do that without making the judgement that a particular action is sinful? If we see two men simulating a wedding, we can rightly judge that what they’re doing is objectively immoral. If we see a man attempting to rape a woman, we can judge that his actions are objectively immoral. If we see someone write that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three expressions of - but not distinct persons within - a single Triune God, we can judge that the writing is objectively heretical. If we see a priest pronounce the words of institution over Doritos and diet soda, we can judge that the priest has committed the sin of sacrilege.

And a magistrate has been given authority to judge, unlike the Catholic laity (be they ‘traditionalist’, ‘liberal’ or whatever).

By virtue of our baptism and confirmation, we have the authority to properly apply the teaching of the Church when it comes to judging the actions of our fellow men. If we didn’t have this authority - if it was a sin to judge at all, which is what you seem to imply - then the very act of declaring that someone is “judging” is a sin, because it is, in itself, a judgement.