Why do progressive Catholics stay in the Church?

[CesarAugustus]

Pardon me for noticing that you do have your buzz words here, namely liberation theology socialism, and some guy I never heard of.
Tigg, I tried to quote you and my post was messed up. Are you quoting someone from the 1890"s who is defining “liberalism”/

Are you talking to me?

Ricardo de la Cierva is a Spanish historian who has written some books about liberation theology, its origins, the history of persecutions against the Catholic Church and more recently a book about infiltrations in the Church

Blessings !!!

 

[IamDust]

To answer the original question - I would agree with an earlier poster who mentioned that it is sort of a tradition. Other than that, I don’t really know, but it seems that other posters have some good thoughts!

I also wanted propose that there really aren’t liberal, progressive, or conservative Catholics. Sure, we label them that…but those terms derive from politics, yes or yes??? The Catholic Church is NOT a political entity. With Christ at the head, and the Pope his vicar/servant here on Earth, I trust in Christ, His teachings, commands, and promptings through the Pope, and His Church.

It seems to me that you are either following Christ and the teachings of His church or you aren’t.

Keep the Faith and discussion alive!!

 

[St_Francis]

Are you talking to me?

Ricardo de la Cierva is a Spanish historian who has written some books about liberation theology, its origins, the history of persecutions against the Catholic Church and more recently a book about infiltrations in the Church

Blessings !!!

I could only find Spanish versions of his works, so it would be hard for many of us to read them.

Maybe you could describe LT and its relation to progressive/liberal politics? LT does not seem to be well-understood in the US–I don’t know about other parts of the world aside from Latin America and the US.

 

[Justin1982]

It seems to me that you are either following Christ and the teachings of His church or you aren’t.

Good point!

Via Dolorosa, I do understand that the issues go much further and I emphasize MUCH, but I just wanted to get a cross-section of much larger issue. On progressives, more so today it seems, they want to adapt history more so to fit the agenda rather than base it off of truth and learn from the mistakes. It’s much like the idea that time is more of a cycle than it is linear, we seem to make the same mistakes every few hundred years or so because we tend to forget history and assume we’re smarter than the previous generation.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, I assumed the OP was referring to people who are still involved in the Church, and CMatt seems to think that it refers to all those who have been baptized Catholic and who can therefore claim membership in the Church.

Since it is very difficult to get oneself recognized as non-Catholic, the default is to “remain in” the Church, but I know that before I returned to the Church neither I nor anyone else could have considered me a “member” except for that.

All can claim membership. But I also gave you an answer which included another reason being is that the progressives still see some of Christ’s Gospel message being done, ie, service to the poor, the sick, and so forth. Although my priest recentty said his answer to some of the poor even in the current US economy was for the poor to get a job and I nearly walked out of Mass. And I listed some other reasons. But you didn’t like my answers. So anyway those more active are baptized members too.

 

[RobbyS]

I think that we have mixed up political and religious terms in such a way that we have caused confusion. On the one hand, people in general in our society seem to have *replaced *religion with politics altogether, which has led to people talking about “progressive” Catholics and “conservative” Catholics related only to their politics (as the term “conservative Catholic” has a specific meaning related only to religion for some, which only makes things even more confusing! But I will leave that out.)

All too many progressive Catholics *reject *one or more of the truths of the Church. When I hear the question, why do liberal or progressive Catholics stay in the Church, it is these latter that I think the question refers to–those who allow their Catholicism to be run over by the (left-leaning) political philosophies of the day.

I believe there can be apparent progressives who believe everything the Church teaches and who live a Catholic life (receiving the sacraments, following the teachings) but are these people then truly progressive? I think that certain aspects of the liberal/progressive philosophies are incompatible with Catholicism.

The result is that to me the question does revolve around the question Why do so-called Catholics like Senator Pelosi, VP Biden, Sr Joan Chichester, people who very obviously disagree in their lives and because of their politics with some teachings of the Church, stay in the Church?

Because they want to change the Church. They believe that they are right, they believe that the Church belongs equally to them, and they believe that staying and working for the changes they advocate is the right thing to do. Just as the woman said in the article when Americans back in the liberal/progressive Camelot days of the VietNam War stayed in the US and worked to change the policy of the US government, so these people stay and try to remake the Church in their own image.

Of course. Years ago, Brian Moore wrote “Catholics,” a small book that depicted the Church controlled by liberals. They think of the Church in sociological terms, and reduce the supernatural to the mythical, no different in their thinking in that regard than the modernists of 100 years ago. Mother Theresa famously said that she was not a social worker. But Sister Chichester thinks of herself as precisely that --and no more.

 

[Dale_M]

But Sister Chichester thinks of herself as precisely that --and no more.

Who is Sister Chichester?

 

[fkjuliano]

Why do progressive Catholics stay in the Church?

I have wondered this for some time. I have even asked some of them and gotten only evasive answers, like “You’re telling me to leave the Church? That’s selfish!”

Here is where I’m coming from: Suppose I want to buy a new Chevy and go to the Ford dealer and demand he sell me a new Chevy, all the while there is a Chevy dealer down the street. I also demand he sell only Chevvies to his other customers. Now if I win in this hypothetical, there will be two Chevvy dealers and no Ford dealers to help those who believe Fords are better. Now, that’s selfish.

I detect this attitude in the linked article where the author says she has “…a resolve not to be shut out by those who say they are speaking in the name of the Father. We just don’t believe them.”

A priest once told me that if he became convinced that the Catholic Church no longer taught the truth, he would have a moral obligation to search for the truth elsewhere. We all have the same moral obligation: to search for the truth. So if they don’t believe the bishops are teaching the truth, they have an obligation to find it elsewhere.

She goes on to say that, “the Church is not an institution; it is the people.” What is lurking under this statement is the crux of the problem as I see it: how does one look at the Church? She obviously rejects the idea that it is an institution. I suspect that she is using the word “institution” in two different ways. If it is not an institution but people, is it just a social gathering of people? Do they share common beliefs? What is their mission? To teach; to govern?

Progressives say they want to progress, but to what end? To be able to sin without guilt? To find justification in their particular sin? If not, why all the progressive “Catholic” organizations calling for abortion, etc.? I hear some of them say they want to vote for their priests and bishops. Jesus gave his first apostles the mission to “Go forth into the world and proclaim the gospel, teaching all nations what I have taught you.” If that isn’t a teaching mission then what is it? If it is, then I ask the progressives if they elected their teachers and deans when they were students in school.

“…it is the people, people who are now wounded and scandalized, not only by the sexual crimes of priests, but more important, by the cover-up by those in power.”

Here is the Leftist thought: the only way to view the world is in terms of power, IOW, Machiavellian.

“In 1959 the election of Pope John XXIII was a surprise, a kind of miracle. It happened once. It could happen again. We wait, in stubborn hope, for the return of miracle.”

How does she know that the current pope is not that miracle? Here is what he had to say before he was pope:

“Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

So I say they should go to the Chevvy dealer if they believe in Chevvies. But their refusal is an indication to me that Satan is at work in these groups.

Just an outstanding exposition of the truth in this topic.

Let’s pray that Pope Benedict will become the first centenarian pope with good health all the way.

 

[napoli426]

Very good…I suppose it’s better for them to be here…but sometimes…like my mother in law…I wish she’d just leave…lol

 

[Charlemagne_II]

St. Francis

Thanks for the reference to Judas in the Gospel of John!

I think the same could be said for many (though not all) progressives in the “social justice” department. They are in it to line their own purses.

 

[Tigg]

Of course. Years ago, Brian Moore wrote “Catholics,” a small book that depicted the Church controlled by liberals. They think of the Church in sociological terms, and reduce the supernatural to the mythical, no different in their thinking in that regard than the modernists of 100 years ago. Mother Theresa famously said that she was not a social worker. But Sister Chichester thinks of herself as precisely that --and no more.

Do you mean the dissident Benedictine religious, Sister Joan Chittister, of Call to Action Fame, AKA Pope Joan? She and others were described as “Sisters of Defiance” in Time magazine a few years ago and her champion causes include feminist theology (including women’s ordination of course) and a woman’s right to choose. She received a formal warning to cease and desist from the Vatican, which has been ignored, altho I understand at one point she was removed from her post. It is a new age of rebellion and defiance with the Progressives in the Church leading the way!

 

[Tigg]

Tigg, I tried to quote you and my post was messed up. Are you quoting someone from the 1890"s who is defining “liberalism”/

It is a published work and all pertinent info was on my post. (I could find no link) but the book is here on my desk. I quoted directly from Chap. 7 (with snips.)

 

[St_Francis]

All can claim membership. But I also gave you an answer which included another reason being is that the progressives still see some of Christ’s Gospel message being done, ie, service to the poor, the sick, and so forth. Although my priest recentty said his answer to some of the poor even in the current US economy was for the poor to get a job and I nearly walked out of Mass. And I listed some other reasons. But you didn’t like my answers. So anyway those more active are baptized members too.

CMatt, I misunderstood your original post, in which you said that some might call you, among other things, a lapsed or non-practicing Catholic. To me, this means a person who was once baptized but in between then and now stopped acting Catholic in any way. I myself was a lapsed Catholic for many years.

What I did was to say that yours was not a great post and to explain to someone I thought was not Catholic why I thought that, in light of my mistaken idea that you were a Catholic *only *in name.

I also tried, somewhere along the line, to explain that the type of Catholic I thought the OP was referring to was those like Sr Chichester and Sen Pelosi who *work against *Church teachings while continuing to “practice.” I may perhaps have been unclear in that; however, let me state for the record that I am *not *talking about Catholics who practice their Faith as it has been handed down to them *and *are concerned for the poor (which to me is a *part *of the Faith); I am referring to those who *act against *the Faith in a major and public way while continuing to be physically involved in the Church.

 

[Bluegoat]

I would like to say something as a bit of a personal wish. I really really wish people would stop using the word “liberal” as it relates to politics in these discussions.

At the moment, the word “liberal” has very specific connotations in America. It doesn’t have the same meaning it has had historically, and more importantly it doesn’t have the same meaning in other countries.

So we get people using it in different ways which is confusing when they do not realize it, and it also tends to very much limit the discussion to the situation in the US. This is not really a good thing, since the CC is a world-wide institution. Very often one gets the impression here that the American part of the Catholic Church is the only one that exists, and my observation is that it tends to lower the quality of the discussion. It becomes easy for politics and religion to become confused - it is much less likely to happen if we try to keep a world-wide perspective in mind.

Here in Canada, Liberal is actually the name of a political party, and the word liberal does not the connotations used by Americans. Progressive, as used in the title thread, it probably better, and even then it really needs to be defined in the discussion.

 

[St_Francis]

…Tigg, I tried to quote you and my post was messed up. Are you quoting someone from the 1890"s who is defining “liberalism”/

It is a published work and all pertinent info was on my post. (I could find no link) but the book is here on my desk. I quoted directly from Chap. 7 (with snips.)

Here is a link to the book online.

 

[Bluegoat]

I also tried, somewhere along the line, to explain that the type of Catholic I thought the OP was referring to was those like Sr Chichester and Sen Pelosi who *work against *Church teachings while continuing to “practice.” I may perhaps have been unclear in that; however, let me state for the record that I am *not *talking about Catholics who practice their Faith as it has been handed down to them *and *are concerned for the poor (which to me is a *part *of the Faith); I am referring to those who *act against *the Faith in a major and public way while continuing to be physically involved in the Church.

I mentioned before I thought this was related somewhat to the teaching “once a Catholic, always a Catholic”. This doesn’t, I think, just affect people in self-identification. I suspect it may also lead to people who have real problems with CC teachings to stay in the Church rather than leave.

First of all, if people are told that whatever they think or do they are still a Catholic in some sense, it seems logical to say “although I disagree about the CC teaching on contraception, I will remain here, because I am still part of the Catholic Church”.

And I also think there is kind of a gut reaction among many people. Having been taught their whole lives that Catholicism IS the Church, they have a hard time leaving that. If they accept that even unconsciously, they may come to the conclusion that some of her teachings are wrong - and of course it is true that the CC has never been a perfect institution, so may be able able to see the things they disagree with in this light.

Also, they probably find the argument that they are subjecting the Church to their reason as somewhat unconvincing. What is sometimes glossed over in that is even those who choose to submit their reason and will to the Church have done so because they believe that the Church is what it claims to be. No one advocates just taking the word of any institution or person that it is God’s direct messenger - lots of crazy people have claimed that. And when people do that, choose to be Catholic, they have subjected the content of Catholisism to their scrutiny. I think that how this fits together is something that could many times be better presented, because when some people claim that “real” Catholics never do it is clearly false.

 

[Tigg]

I would like to say something as a bit of a personal wish. I really really wish people would stop using the word “liberal” as it relates to politics in these discussions.

At the moment, the word “liberal” has very specific connotations in America. It doesn’t have the same meaning it has had historically, and more importantly it doesn’t have the same meaning in other countries.

So we get people using it in different ways which is confusing when they do not realize it, and it also tends to very much limit the discussion to the situation in the US. This is not really a good thing, since the CC is a world-wide institution. Very often one gets the impression here that the American part of the Catholic Church is the only one that exists, and my observation is that it tends to lower the quality of the discussion. It becomes easy for politics and religion to become confused - it is much less likely to happen if we try to keep a world-wide perspective in mind.

Here in Canada, Liberal is actually the name of a political party, and the word liberal does not the connotations used by Americans. Progressive, as used in the title thread, it probably better, and even then it really needs to be defined in the discussion.

What word would you like us to use? We must have something to call the subject at hand and the term is not confined to politics alone. Liberals themselves keep changing their names. They used to call themselves modernists, then liberals, and now progressives. I’m just saying…

 

[Bluegoat]

What word would you like us to use? We must have something to call the subject at hand and the term is not confined to politics alone. Liberals themselves keep changing their names. They used to call themselves modernists, then liberals, and now progressives. I’m just saying…

I suggested progressive would be better in the context of the discussion of the Church.

But you have kind of proved my point for me. When you say “Liberal themselves keep changing their names. They used to call themselves modernists, then liberals, and now progressives” that is a very American take. To equate liberal with a modernist doesn’t make sense in a lot of other places.

In this particular discussion, why not just talk about people with fundamental disagreements with Catholic doctrine who choose to stay within the CC? Why politicize it at all? After all, there are Libertarians who have fundamental disagreements with Catholic doctrine but choose to stay. But to refer to them as liberals, or even progressives, is a bit odd.

 

[PaulinVA]

What word would you like us to use? We must have something to call the subject at hand and the term is not confined to politics alone. Liberals themselves keep changing their names. They used to call themselves modernists, then liberals, and now progressives. I’m just saying…

Maybe heterodox?

What I see is that as one label becomes pejorative, another is selected, and then another, and another…

Political labels bring baggage with them to the ecclesiastical realm, and they might be confusing. However, it is interesting that a set of political views at times maps well into religious views.

That said, labels only work if all involved agree on the meaning.

To me, progressive means “I don’t like things the way they are, and I want to change the underlying assumptions so I can change a lot of things I don’t like”.

 

[St_Francis]

The issue of labels is tricky indeed.

I would suggest that so-called Enlightenment thinking is at the root of many streams of political and social thought today, and that it is contrary to the Faith. As someone I know IRL continually tells me, the Republicans are not that much better than the Democrats, and this is true. We can see it in the issue of the provision of health care, where the solutions are framed as *either *socialized health care *or *rampantly greedy free market health care.

So both the politicly left and right stem from the “Enlightenment” and are thus both flawed. I guess that I see those from the politically left acting in the Church as being like a bulldozer and those on the politically right trying to impose their vision (such as the libertarians) as being more like flies because they are fewer in number and have had only a tiny fraction of the impact that the others have had.

So for me, the question becomes, why do those who espouse a materialist view of the world try to impose that on the Church? Why do they not instead leave for a more salubrious climate?